Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norilana Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. No one here disputes the existence of this publisher -- the argument rests on the question of reliable sources. Of the three citations provided, two are only semi-independent at best, having a self-admitted business relationship with the article's subject. Several good-faith editors (some under the color of "expertise") attest that more print sources exist.

Under the circumstances, sourcing for this article may rightly be considered weak; however, because real citations are present (debatable though their merit may be), the article is not incredibly offensive to the requirements of WP:V. Policy does not demand the removal of this content.

The discussion below reaches no firm conclusions on the merits of the existing citations, or the possibility of finding others in print sources. Assuming good faith of the keep commenters (and recalling "when in doubt, don't delete"), it seems reasonable to allow some time for rewriting and expansion. Certainly, if further citations are not present in a month or two, revisiting the issue of article deletion would be proper. Xoloz 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norilana Books

Norilana Books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No sign of notability. Conflict of interest concern. A Google search[1] indeed verifies that this publisher exists, but suggests no reliable, independent sources we can use to write an encyclopedia article. De-prodded without comment, but see creator's and article's talk pages for further discussion. Pan Dan 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because http://norilana.livejournal.com/71426.html, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}



  • Question: Does SFWA consider Norilana a professional market? Might I suggest that whether or not this Norilana qualifies under the SFWA (Science Fictiona and Fantasy Writers of America) as a professional market might be a good determinant? I believe that books from this publisher are eligible for Nebula recommendations and that publication by Norilana would be counted as a "publication" for membership in SFWA. Is that not correct? If it is is a professional market, then it's as deserving of a wiki as Tor, one would thnk. And it reads no more like an advert than any other such listing. -- Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff -- kaath9@sbcglobal.net



  • Delete Reads like an advert (WP:SPAM), no references and I agree with the chance of conflict of interest.The Sunshine Man 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite.Shsilver 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Using what sources? Pan Dan 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I've added two citations for one of the claims, and as Doctorow points out, there are several print sources, including Locus which has covered it since it first appeared.Shsilver 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete and reconcider. Where does it read as an advert when it simply lists facts concerning authors and titles released by this publisher? Do you not find the classic Marion Zimmer Bradley's Sword and Sorceress series notable enough? Norilana Books is linked to from various Marion Zimmer Bradley pages. Vera Nazarian 05:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)VeraNazarian


How is this situation any different than the entry for Tor Books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Books) -- it's needed info if you're a writer looking for publishers, or looking for who publishes your favorite authors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.168.129 (talk • contribs)

    • The question in every case is, are there reliable sources that discuss the subject that can be used to write an encyclopedia article? You are welcome to find and add appropriate sources to both Norilana Books and Tor Books that could help to verify and/or expand the contents of those articles. In the case of Norilana Books, I doubt that such sources exist, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. Pan Dan 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
See my note above, or Doctorow's below about one legitimate source. Another is SF Site, which has discussed the press on its news page and SF Scope.Shsilver 12:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do not see the conflict of interest here. It's a very brief entry, tells you the organization exists and a little about what they (or she, rather) has published. I say keep it. -Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.30.249 (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Go ahead and delete. It isn't important.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.174.23.11 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Keep Innumerable sources mention this press, including Locus Magazine, the venerable, respected trade magazine of the science fiction field; Vera can certainly cite to any of the many issues of Locus that confirm the press exists, that it is notable, and that it publishes books Doctorow 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Yes, please add those sources then I will change my delete voice. — Indon (reply) — 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Norilana is notable for resuming the venerable Marion Zimmer Bradley series and is publishing new works by well known science fiction and fantasy authors, such as Sherwood Smith, as well as reprinting many classics. I'm new here so forgive any newbie errors, but if the criteria for notability is "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic" then Norilana qualifies as it has been directly addressed in independent sources such as Locus, SFSite, SFScope, numerous blogs (from independent sources), and the numerous books appear verifiably for sale on Amazon, Barnes & Noble. Andrewburt 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Note for this user: — Andrewburt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep * Norilana is a legitimate small press and should have the same access to Wikipedia as larger presses. As others have noted, it has been discussed in multiple independent sources important to the SF field, providing factual information about the press and its activities. Its books are available through standard outlets. Its release of classic titles, and its reviving of the Marion Zimmer Bradley series, are notable and of value to writers and readers in the SF/F community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E n moon (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
    Note for this user: — E n moon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indon (reply) — 09:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Note for this user: I can independently confirm that the identity of this user is Elizabeth Moon, a widely published Science Fiction writer and expert on Science Fiction publishing, and should be given suitable weight to their argument. --Barberio 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Again Special:Contributions/E_n_moon SPA/COI jbolden1517Talk 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Doctorow and Andrewburt: Yes this press exists (which I acknowledge in my nomination) but existence is not notability. Notability comes from independent coverage of Norilana that we can use to write an article. Andrew, you correctly quote the requirement of "significant coverage" but fail to provide any examples of such coverage. An acknowledgement in a book review that the book was published by Norilana is nowhere close to significant coverage. Thanks to Shsilver for actually looking for sources. He's added one source (that's reliable) to the article. I still don't think it's enough to write an article (it's enough to verify one sentence about Norilana) but if other sources are provided that would go a long way towards establishing notability and improving the article. Pan Dan 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doctorow himself would seem to me to be a sufficiently independent source, as (if it's Cory) he's a published author in the field, and published elsewhere than Norilana. Brashley46 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Note for this user: — Brashley46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indon (reply) — 09:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This livejournal post may be of interest to whoever closes this debate.Geni 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have completed your concern with the template above. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 08:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A relatively new publisher, but seems to be valid. We, or you as I no longer consider myself part of this place, don't have much on the SF/F/H small press world but that doesn't mean we/you can't or should not.--T. Anthony 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry to say that the editor violated WP:COI and the article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The current references do not explain about the subject but the Sword & Sorceress book which is trivial for this article. Therefore the article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography about the subject to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 08:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim of notability let alone evidence. No reliable sources. Nuttah68 10:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. This is the Webcomics deletionisim all over again. Two *major* authorities in Science Fiction writing and publishing, Cory Doctorwow and Elizabeth Moon have both posted here, and made statements elsewhere that verify this, that they consider the publisher to be noteworthy. Are Wikipedia's editors that arrogant to ignore this? Notability of this has instantly been acquired via the attention given to the publishers by Doctorwow and Moon. In fact, in cases where any notable external group starts publicising a deletion process to argue against it, any argument over Notability becomes immediately moot as such campaigns are inherent examples of notability. It seems hugely arrogant of Wikipedia's editors to place themselves above Experts in the Field in deciding what is an is not notable. The last remaining concern is that of 'reads like an advert', to which the solution is not deletion but rewriting. --Barberio 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The advertisement of this deletion discussion on a blog--which appears to be Norilana's own blog--surely fails to lend Norilana notabilty. If anything, the advertisement supports the idea that some participants in this discussion, just like the article's creator, have conflicts of interest. Pan Dan 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I also want to note that an article being created by someone with a Conflict of Interests is not a reason to delete the article, WP:COI applies to content and edits, not the existence of an article. Issues raised over WP:COI are to be corrected by editing, not AFD. --Barberio 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but the conflict of interest is an indicator that Norilana may not be (independently) notable. The lack of non-trivial reliable sources confirms this. Pan Dan 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Non-trivial reliable sources have already been referenced in this discussion multiple times. Here's a SFWA press release about Norilana and their activities, [2], SFScope reporting news about Norilana [3], print issues of Locus and other magazines that have reviewed the books produced by Norilana, and of course two major Science Fiction Writers publicly stating that this is a notable publisher... Can I ask what more you want? --Barberio 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Reliable sources, independent of Norilana, that we can use to write an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability. Your first link is a reprint of a Norilana press release. Your second link is about a book, not Norilana, and is enough to verify exactly one sentence in the article. Existence is not notability. Pan Dan 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - um, listen to experts, or this entry will be waved around as further evidence of Wikipedia hostility to experts. (See WT:AFD discussion on how AFD is one of Wikipedia's biggest public relations problems, to an extent where it's blatantly inviting a Foundation smackdown similar to the one that created WP:BLP.) I went to the LJ entry and asked them not to pull this crap, and I still think "keep" based on the evidence - David Gerard 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Barberio and David re: experts. First, Wikipedia is not hostile to experts. But, unlike traditional encyclopedias, editorial decisions on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources that are external to Wikipedia. For this reason the argument of an expert is given no more weight than that of any other editor here. I have no interest in checking whether User:E n moon and User:Doctorow are in fact who Barberio claims they are. Their real-life identities are not relevant, only their arguments are. If fact, if they are who Barberio claims they are, and if they are professionally close to Norilana, then their recommendations should be given less, not more weight, because of obvious conflicts of interest. There are no experts on Wikipedia, only pseudonymous or anonymous contributors; and arguments and decisions on Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable external sources.

    Second, notability of a subject has nothing to with pronouncements by anybody, even a confirmed expert, that that subject is notable. Notability has to do with the quality and quantity of reliable sources that exist on the subject. Pan Dan 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Your reply here that we have to give experts less weight is the exact reason why Wikipedia is seen to be hostile towards experts. WP:COI is not to be used as a brick bat to dismiss experts, this is like saying Boeing engineers are not allowed to edit or create aviation articles. And yes... There are Experts on Wikipedia, or would you rather live in the world of Harrison Bergeron? --Barberio 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Please read what I said more carefully. I didn't say that we have to give experts' recommendations less weight in general. I said that in this case, if the editors who you claim are experts are professionally close to Norilana, then they have a conflict of interest. The point is that your argument that we should give their opinions more weight because of their real-life identities is self-defeating. Finally, your comparison to Harrison Bergeron is grossly inapt, because Wikipedia is not the real world, and verification of editors' credentials is not (yet) policy. By contrast it is Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia operates on external sources (written in some cases by experts), not expert editors. See also Essjay controversy. Pan Dan 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Incidentally, in this case I believe we can apply a clear test to your interpretation of how the wiki works... Will this make for a better encyclopaedia?. Well, in this case Experts in the field believe the article is warranted to be included, people have presented independent sources noting the publisher, and the article can be edited to be worthwhile. I have yet to see a counter argument that refutes this. There is no other basis to remove the article, or any other article, than clearly explaining why it is unencyclopaedic to keep it. --Barberio 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I pretty liberal and if other regular editors are voting keep I almost always vote keep in these mixed arguments. There is far too much conflict of interest here. Vera Nazarian, Special:Contributions/Vera_Nazarian is an obvious SPA. I see nothing but Spam/promotion coming from this account. Norilana books seems to be a legitimate publisher and most likely will get an article written about it by an editor who doesn't have a vested interest in its success. Worse yet we now have multiple posts by SPA's and canvassing. I think keeping this article sets a terrible precedent with regard to spam. jbolden1517Talk 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but watch carefully for COI. It does look like some source material is available, and from looking at the SFScope site, it appears that it is editorially-controlled and meets reliability. COI is not a reason to delete an article, any more than ILIKEIT is a reason to keep one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, COI is not the main issue for deletion, but what about WP:CORP? In the section about Special note: advertising and promotion, there are three items for solving advert in the following order of precedence:
    1. Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
    2. Delete remaining advertising content from the article
    3. Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.
I'm not sure if the first two steps have been performed, but this current AfD is legitimate for the last step because there is no independent & reliable secondary sources to pass the notability criterion. — Indon (reply) — 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
We've already clearly identified several independent sources that have reported on Norilana Books and their releases. And to quote Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.", so can we please suspend the demands for a shrubbery? --Barberio 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Correction, we've identified one independent source (SFScope), which has given us enough information to verify two sentences about Norilana. Pan Dan 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Even so, that's established notability. The article's content can be referenced from primary source materials published by Norilana. End of discussion? --Barberio 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I can verify at least two sentences about myself in independent sources. I got some run-of-the-mill award in a high school ceremony reported in the local paper, and I'm listed in the phone book, for starters. And the government keeps records on me. But two sentences do not make an encyclopedia article. If Norilana attracted enough notice to actually be the subject of an independent write-up, as WP:N suggests, then that would be something we could work with. Pan Dan 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Frankly, you're now taking this to ridiculous levels of requirement, in direct contradiction of the above recommendation from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Please try to remember, these are guidelines. Apply some common sense here, and try to listen to what's been said rather than demanding we meet some artificial requirements. SFScope's write up of Norilana, and Locus's coverage of their book releases is notability enough. and your comparison of 'entry in a phone book' is absurd. --Barberio 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Barberio, could you read carefully again the Primary Criterion section of WP:CORP, please? It says: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The references you talked about is incidental for this subject, because they talked about a book which incidentally was published by this AfD subject. — Indon (reply) — 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Release of books is not an 'incidental' event to a publisher, it's what publishers do. Magazines reporting on and reviewing the books released by a publisher is identical to magazines reporting and reviewing the games developed by a video game company. Would you say games reviews did not count as notability for a games developer? --Barberio 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Games reviews do not count as notability for a games developer. The reviews of the book may or may make that notable, but under the principles of 'notability is not inheritable' Norliana must be the subject of articles itself to establish notability. Nuttah68 07:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Barberio, game (or book) reviews do not count notability for the game developer (or the book publisher), but for the game (or the book) itself. — Indon (reply) — 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • The items published by an individual or corporation do not exist in a vacuum where they can have notability but the publisher can not. If the item published is notable, then the publisher is notable for publishing it. --Barberio 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • Nice, a classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED argument. — Indon (reply) — 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • You're trying to argue that the books published by Norilana should be kept a separate and distinct entity from Norilana, in which case WP:NOTINHERITED might apply. But this is a spurious argument as it implies that we could have a 'List of books published by Norilana' article, but not a 'Norilana Books' article, which is clearly absurd. Again, you're applying guidelines contrary to common sense. --Barberio 13:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Arbitary break to sum up
    1. Norilana Books has a non-trivial independent write ups in SFScope
    2. Norilana Books's commercial activities have been independently reported on by Locus and the SFWA. The release of a book by Norilina Books is a commercial activity of Norilana Books, and not a separate entity.
    3. There are verifiable sources of information about Norilana Books, from the above secondary sources, and from Norilana Books themselves, and there should be no problems in citing.
    4. Concerns over conflict of interests can be corrected by editing the article.
    5. Two experts in the field have attested to Norilana Books being a notable publisher.
  • This whole AfD seems completely predicated on satisfying arbitrary and artificial requirements rather than investigating the merits of the article. And it has already generated a moderate amount of bad press towards Wikipedia. It should be noted that this is almost certain to be taken to WP:DRV, and that the Notability guidelines are currently being re-written precisely because of inappropriate AfD arguments like this. --Barberio 13:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I won't respond to most of your points because I would be repeating myself, but I will respond to your claim of "bad press." A complaint by a woman posted on her own company's blog that the article she created about her own company on Wikipedia (in violation of our conflict of interest guideline) is being considered for deletion due to lack of notability (i.e. sources) is neither bad nor press. It's chutzpah. If I create a Wikipedia article about my company, claim that it's notable because it does business with notable companies, and then complain on my blog when it gets deleted, would you call that bad press too? Pan Dan 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I've seen discussion about this on various Science Fiction forums, not via the Norilana LJ. And people are not being complimentary to Wikipedia over it. --Barberio 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pan Dan, you seem to be arguing for deletion based on the fact that YOU do not consider the press or the sources to be notable enough. However, those within the SF field DO consider it notable. The fact that published, established authors came here to lend credence, even if they've never contributed to wikipedia before, proves that the press is notable and important. I defy you to provide a qualitative definition of notable that does not apply to this press or the Wikipedia article. Theangryblackwoman 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    This account was active from Feb-March on a few debates and then stopped being used. Special:Contributions/Theangryblackwoman. There were several sci-fi related posts during this period of time. I think they came as a result of the live journal and/or other canvassing. jbolden1517Talk 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • First, jbolden, why exactly does it matter how I came here? Second, no, I don't spend every day of my life on Wikipedia, and for exactly this reason. having to constantly truck with petty tyrants is wearying and I have other things to do, like live my life. One of the reasons I created an account was to correct mistakes in articles and add to discussion where necessary. Lately, I haven't seen anything to edit or a discussion I wanted to be involved in. Now, I do. Barberio is quite correct, I think you're being wildly inappropriate. Theangryblackwoman 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    This user appears to be a good faith user, just relatively new. Surprisingly, not every user makes edits every day, or even week. Additional, the "several sci-fi related posts" seems to be a mistaken reading of the Scientology related edits. This, and above accusations of 'conflict of interest' for being science fiction writers, and accusation of 'single purpose accounts' towards new accounts that have made good faith edits is out of line and inappropriate. I suggest that jbolden1517 retract his comments, apologise and not bite the newcomers. Especially not bite a newcomer who may well write about the incident in Boing Boing.--Barberio 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    No I'm aware of the difference between scientology and science fiction. The posts in question: [4][5][6]. And I think what's going on here should be written about, I hope it is. Wikipedia should have a reputation for being hostile to spam. jbolden1517Talk 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    So what you are saying is that two edits about a Fantasy book not published by a mainstream publisher, and one edit about a Science Fiction TV show, somehow 'proves' bad intent on behalf of this editor? I suggest your logic is severely flawed, you should read and understand Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, and apologise to the editor. I'd also like you to back up your assertion that the article is "spam", as has been repeatedly pointed out here the article itself is not spam, and any issues over potential conflict of interest are corrected by editing not deletion. --Barberio 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:N. Pan Dan 16:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:N is a guideline, and should not be followed when it goes against common sense. I also remind you that WP:N is currently under review after consensus failed to support it's current state. --Barberio 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Barberio, why are you denying all the Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Everything in here can always be reviewed. At the moment, we use the current guidelines, okay? — Indon (reply) — 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Barberio is correct. It's a guideline currently "under active discussion" and isn't actually policy. Common editing sense should always come before a guideline. The amount of people coming here to defend this article, whether regular editors or not, shows that the publisher is notable.
You also need to ask yourself how many sources are going to exist on book publishers specifically and not on books themselves. You'll find that generally the only sources on them are expert sources....ones of which we've found for this article.
It's also worth noting that the person who put this AFD up has a history of being aggressive and rude to new Wikipedia users using AFD procedures to an excessively pedantic nature. A troll if you will. Roger Danger Field 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh...please see User_talk:Pan_Dan#Shepherd's Pie Advert for what has brought Roger here. Roger, please provide evidence of me being aggressive or rude, or strike out your comment. Pan Dan 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The aformented deletion and your aggressiveness in pursuing administrators to overturn their decision of "no consensus" which it clearly was, and the petty listing of a stub so shortly after the articles creation and when it had sources is pedantic. Pestering administrators to change decisions and the results of CLOSED AFD's is against AFD procedures and thus is rude to the contributors of the article, and the community at large.
ps - I brought myself here originally through the AFD logs itself originally and commented to keep without realising it was you who put this up. Seen as you have no evidence that I came through your user page to here, then perhaps you should strike out your own comment, sir. Roger Danger Field 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Double sigh. Others, feel free to ignore this puerile exchange. Roger, I listed the article for deletion a week after it was created; it cited no sources that verified any of its content; sources were thoroughly sought in the course of the AFD; and discussing an AFD closure with the closing admin is encouraged, not "aggressive" or against procedure. Pan Dan 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Pan Dan, I have to agree with Roger's assessment. I don't know you and have never interacted with you before this, and I feel you're being rude and unnecessarily aggressive. Theangryblackwoman 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you're mistaking discussion for aggression and rudeness. Pan Dan 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rapidly losing patience with this whole discussion. I will admit that I finally created an account here in order to contribute to this discussion, but I've been using wikipedia as an online resource for a couple of years now, and I thought this was a worthwhile discussion to get involved in. If you research my contributions since this started you'll find I have added to the material in a couple of political articles and may contribute more, if I feel like it.

I feel less and less like it as my friends and acquaintances get shortshrifted here. Wikipedia's admins don't seem to give much thought to the usefulness of any articles on publishers. Brashley46 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah lovely, another strawman from Pan Dan. YES, well done, constructive criticism is encouraged. BUT the proper channel to do that is through the Deletion Review, NOT whining and complaining on an admin's talk page until they change a decision already made and closed (This is against the deletion procedures and policies).

Did you or did you not go through the proper channels to review the deletion, or did you not play a part in changing an already closed AFD? Is it not also true that you used voting figures to do this, despite there being clearly two sides of the argument and despite it clearly been said on multiple occasions that AFD is not a vote and is a place to find a consensus? Is a decision against the wishes of several editors and a sizeable minority disagreeing a consensus? No, it clearly isn't.

So as I said and I've shown. You either do not know or are unwilling to follow AFD procedures properly in the past and have been rude in doing this as well, suggesting once again, that you have erroneously listed an article for deletion. i.e. this article.

In regard to the other article, the information was sourced, you simply didn't like the sources used. It could have had more, but the citation template would have been the way to go until the small problem was rectified. Roger Danger Field 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note. The previous debacle is already out of topic. To others, please stay focus on the topic of this AfD discussion. Please discuss the content and not the editors. Roger Danger Field, please go to WP:DR. This is not the venue to resolve your disputes with other editors. — Indon (reply) — 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right Indon, and I suggest this thread be removed from this AFD to Roger's or my talk page, and if no one objects soon, I'll do that. Until that happens, I have to defend myself here. Roger, if you actually read the link that I posted in my previous comment, you will see that it says If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You have yet to provide a single example of me being rude. Pan Dan 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question What exactly needs to be done to the article at this point to make it less like advertising and more like a wikipedia article. I see three sources listed on the page and four paragraphs noting what the publishers does and books they publish. What else, exactly, does it need? If nothing, then it needs to be removed from deletion consideration. If it still needs work, what needs to be done. Because this whole thing is getting off topic, out of hand, and less and less useful as it goes on. Theangryblackwoman 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Your conduct in previous AFDs when similar to this one is clearly relevant.
and yes I can "read". You still should have put it through the deletion review as a matter of courtesy to the people who were against the deletion and whining to change the decision using information you know people are going to disagree with is a backhanded and unfriendly thing to do. It's now the case that the people who want to contribute to that article have to put it through the deletion review, rather than the person who wanted to remove content and the chance for users to edit Wikipedia. You are just not getting this, but its probably down to your lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about.
ps - removing my relevant comments will be treated as vandalism under WP:Vand.Roger Danger Field 11:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Suit yourself. Your gripe is with established procedures, not me. If anyone's breached any policies here, it's you who's violated WP:CIVIL.[7] Pan Dan 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite (and I note that Shsilver has already started on this). There were indeed genuinely clear and strong COI concerns with the original article - but that in itself is not a conclusive argument against notability and, even allowing a measure of COI in some of the contributions, the subsequent discussion both here and on the article's talk page suggests to me definitely sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article given that sufficient independent sources are available. PWilkinson 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a legitimate business isn't one of the notability criteria under WP:CORP. There are few to no independent sources of info about this business. At this time it is impossible to write a neutral article that is more than a very short stub. Therefore, this should be deleted. If you want a Wikipedia article, start a PR campaign to generate coverage in reliable sources. Once the sources exist you can come back and request the article by posting a comment on a relevant talk page somewhere. Avoid writing about yourself or your business. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Few independent sources demonstrating notability is not the same as no sources demonstrating notability. It's already been established that Locus (Print), Locus Online, The SFWA, and SFScope have reported on Norilana and it's corporate activities. This is sufficient to mark note for a small press. And while Conflict of Interest issues should be resolved, they are not a reason to delete an article. --Barberio 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article does not read like an advertisement, and it seems to be a notable publisher to me. It is a proven fact that Wikipedia is very picky about notability, and I wonder if this strict policy should be changed. If an article is well-written, has reliable sources, is about something legitimate, and does not read like an advertisment, I myself see no reason to delete it. This article fits all those requirements. After all, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is "no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover." WP:N says that "notibility is not popularity," so, in other words, it doesn't matter if not many people have heard of this publisher; it is still notable. Tikallover 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:CORP, and kindly leave the sock drawer closed. >Radiant< 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You should probably retract that sock comment unless you're willing to back it up with a formal accusation. Incidently, I know you like using 'per', but can you explicitly tell us which part of CORP you think this fails, and why you do not accept the provided evidence of notability. Otherwise you're just making an 'I don't like it' vote, which should be ignored. --Barberio 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from attacking people who disagree with you. >Radiant< 10:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument. --Barberio 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable nor encyclopediatic. --Tom 14:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.