Talk:Hagiology Publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on October 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[edit] Speedy Deletion

Ridiculous idea. Hagiology Publishing is a collective of fans who wish to help publish books on Southampton club, and is not done for any gain on behalf of the people behind it. I fail to see how this is can honestly be classified as advertising. I'll admit the article could be written better that just a prose list of some of their works, but nominating this for deletion is absurd. If this is to be deleted, than so shoud Penguin Books be - this is simply a stub version of that type of article. There just simply isn't mountains of information on Hagiology. Dan K 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that Penguin produce thousands of books while this publisher only produces a handful. Quite apart from the tone of the advert (which is just a catalogue of its productions) there are also severe notability & citability issues with this article - if there aren't "mountains of information" then it quite clearly fails the basic requirement that there be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Qwghlm 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Define significant. This is a significant organisation with regards Southampton FC - of which it is independent. There are thousands of stubs which don't even being to have as much information as this article. As far as I am aware, no-one with a vested interest in Hagiology has contributed to this page. Rather than just plastering templates on the article, why didn't you just suggest what it needed for improvement before arbitrarily deciding it was suitable for speedy deletion? Small does not mean insignificant. Dan K 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Dan K 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Have (rather hurriedly) added what references I could find of the top of my head, from other media about Hagiology. For the time being that should be enough to quell any questions about "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Dan K 19:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The coverage isn't significant - in every single reference, the name of the company is only mentioned in passing. If there were articles focused about the company which gave it substantial coverage, which would prove its notability, then I would withdraw my concerns, but they do not. This article is still just a catalogue of books they publish (just imagine if the one on Penguin Books were like that and perhaps you can appreciate the difference between the scope of the two articles) with nothing that asserts the company's notability. Now taken to AfD. Qwghlm 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)