Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination)

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. Despite the one "delete" !vote, I think that the consensus is by far obvious enough for this to be closed per WP:SNOW, especially given that I have withdrawn and that the article has been improved significantly. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xlibris

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Xlibris Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination)
Xlibris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No assertation of notability, only source is trivial. Seems to be a vanity press. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn Very good WP:HEY work on this article, looks good to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Qworty apparently removed the highly appropriate category of "book publishing companies". (I reinserted it with "of the US".) I don't understand. It publishes books. What else is it? --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a pretty notable vanity press. See discussions here, here, and probably elsewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Odd. I was able to access the first article for free a minute ago; it was the first thing listed here. Zagalejo^^^ 04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's also this, this, this, etc... Articles have survived AFD with far less. Zagalejo^^^ 06:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was trying to WP:HEY the article using these sources, but Wikipedia (especially article space) has suddenly become slower than a teenager asked to take out the garbage. Hopefully someone can pick up where I left off. Good night. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a FREE REGISTRATION. I don't know why anyone interested in sourcing articles would eschew a NYT login. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

*Weak delete. There are sources, but they mostly seem to be trivial. Celarnor Talk to me 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. They are just a vanity press, not a major legitimate press like, say, HarperCollins. Xlibris will print books for anyone who's willing to open a checkbook and pay. That's not how legitimate, notable authors operate, and that's not how legitimate, notable publishers operate. The average Xlibris title sells only a few copies, most of them to the authors themselves, who then distribute them to friends or family. No real, notable author will order books printed from Xlibris; real, notable authors get advances from legitimate book publishers--they don't have to pay vanity presses! This is why Xlibris has NO notable authors. If they have no notable authors, then they are not a notable publisher. If they are not a notable publisher, we must delete. Qworty (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sill, Xlibiris has been discussed in multiple books and newspaper articles, which is the most important thing to keep in mind when discussing Wikipedia notability standards. Your argument isn't grounded in any policies or guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to disagree with you about his argument not being grounded in policy. Take a look at WP:Notability and you'll see that this is written : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Key words here are significant, reliable, and presumed.Helixweb (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not inherited, and I think that applies to authors and publishers as well. For example, PublishAmerica certainly hasn't any notable authors.Kate (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Spammy and self-bio.Helixweb (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
*Biography:
Main Entry: bi·og·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \bī-ˈä-grə-fē also bē-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bi·og·ra·phies
Etymology: Late Greek biographia, from Greek bi- + -graphia -graphy
Date: 1683
1 : a usually written history of a person's life 2 : biographical writings as a whole 3 : an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)
  • In other words, the article was written by someone within the company to promote their own interests. Take a look at the rather limited contributions of the original author of the article [1] - four spam entries and one sandbox test - and I think that says everything that needs to be said about this article. Looks better, worth keeping. Helixweb (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources for expansion are voluminous, ranging from authors' publishing guides to technical discussions on using their software. Apparently what we have is an article with a long copyvio removed and left as a stub, only receiving nag tags since, but it isn't even in a proper category for people to find and fix it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, press itself seems notable, even if most of the books they publish are not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep there are some scarce sources avalable, so it's not completely non-notable, which per WP:CORP should be enough - but it's also just one small publisher among many. And most material available about it seems to be promotional/press-releases, and I suspect if kept this simply will remain an ad - so also no harm done if it's deleted. --Minimaki (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Given the sheer number of times I see it mentioned in author publishing guides, there's going to be heaps of references. Yes, it's a vanity press and the article needs to clearly state that, but it's one of the two most prominant vanity presses in the States (Publish America being the other, and sleezer, one). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Zalagejo's sources are convincing enough. WP:RS requires sources to be about the subject, not for them to discuss the subject for some (undefined) amount of column-inches. I'm also unsure where in Wikipedia guideline or policy being a vanity press is a deletion ground, and wouldn't mind a link to it.  RGTraynor  14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been completely rewritten from reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good job finding some additional sources. Celarnor Talk to me 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nice WP:HEY, would prefer {{notability}} was used before Afd raised, such things could save us all some time. SunCreator (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason why major vanity publishers should not have an entry, where independent sources exist, as long as their nature is made 100% clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2008 (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.