Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Metcalfe and Son

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 keep Adam Cuerden talk 01:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W. Metcalfe and Son

W. Metcalfe and Son (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability is not asserted or apparent. There are no secondary sources (reliable or otherwise) substantiating its notability. Why is this publisher notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The History of the CUPressis a standard & reliable secondary source, but I think we'd need more than just that they lost the contract. DGG 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: All of my children are beautiful! :-) On the more serious side, this information is difficult to put together and is useful to build the web. As a result, I request that the closer moves to here rather than delete. I will stay out of this Afd discussion. John Vandenberg 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Keep on the basis of information provided, unless there is more information. I do not think that repeated listings in tour guides is relevant for notability, although it might provide details. What information is in the history of the Press--just that they did not win the contract? It's a standard & reliable source, but I think we'd need more than just that.DGG 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC) DGG 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    Much of the text is available via Google Books; the two quotes that have been used are:
    page 329: "Parker was elected Printer on 16 November 1836. Within the Press itself, the elderly James Twitchett, overseer since 1807, put his own name forward, and placed on record his long service to the Syndics.(ref 9) But in the final round Parker's opponent was the local printer William Metcalfe. As both men issued handbills appealing for support (Metcalfe's was a lithographed circular), the affair was not just a formality. The choice between a London publisher and a local printer of fifteen years' standing was a distinct one, though experience of the University Press weighed heavily in favour of Parker.(ref 10)"
    page 337: "Not all these books, and others like them, were printed by the University Press. William Metcalfe, at this time in St Mary's Street, became an accomplished book printer, and John Hall, near Pembroke College, though less skilled, was a competitor almost opposite the Pitt Press itself."
    John Vandenberg 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    These rather brief references still don't seem to me to establish notability. Who says it is important and why? --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
if there was controversy, it must have been in the relevant news publications of the period, perhaps even in the traditional form of letters to the Times. DGG 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to have been a minor publisher, but the fact that a 19th century printing company appears in a 21st century history makes it notable enough for a stub. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to assume that the history of the CU Press relied upon earlier sources, some of which were independent of W. Metcalfe and Son--given the period we're talking about, it's unlikely that these would show up in a Google search. Also, W. Metcalfe and Son is mentioned in the 1972 article in Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, so that's at least 2 independent sources; unfortunately that journal doesn't have full text available online, so I'm unable to see how extensive its coverage is. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's enough reliable secondary and tertiary sources in the article to establish notability, all of which are independent. (→zelzany - fish) 00:27, 17 June 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.