| Revision as of 17:30, 31 December 2015 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:52, 31 December 2015 edit undoJames500 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers80,268 edits Answer.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::::Many of the references fail no such test. ] (]) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | ::::Many of the references fail no such test. ] (]) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Do you have any personal or professional relationship with the company or any of the persons who were associated with it? If so, please disclose here. ]] 17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | :::::Do you have any personal or professional relationship with the company or any of the persons who were associated with it? If so, please disclose here. ]] 17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::That is a preposterous suggestion and most certainly a personal attack. It would be like me accusing you of working for one of the company's competitors. I do, however, strongly object to ultra-deletionism, something that is per se incompatible with the aims of the project and, indeed, with common sense. And I could use much stronger words than that. ] (]) 17:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:52, 31 December 2015
 | Law Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Business Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Oceana Publications seems to have published a large number of notable books, judging by the number of book reviews, the number of citations in GScholar, and so forth. There are lots more sources to add to this article, though I'm not sure I will have the time to personally add them as I have a lot of things to do round here. Oceana publications isn't "defunct" either. Works continued to be published by Oceana Publications after the purchase by OUP. As far as I am aware, a publisher can use an imprint of another publisher they have bought at any time, so the imprint cannot become defunct. James500 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please expand article text by finding information in RS to support notability. Trivial mentions, primary sources, and discussion of the former owner rather than the publisher do not support notability of the publisher. SPECIFICO talk
- (1) Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. I am not obliged to find sources for someone who has very obviously made no attempt to find them himself and is also wilfully shutting his eyes to what is already in the article. (2) There are non-trivial secondary sources already present in the article in abundance. (3) GNG says that significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material". The biographies of Philip Cohen do contain significant coverage of Oceana Publications itself, even if their main topic is Cohen. In any event, if Cohen is BIO1E, in the sense that he is notable because he founded the company (and he does have an obituary in the NYT, which is normally regarded as conclusive proof of notability, because he founded the company), all his notability will contribute to the company. (4) I have added only a small fraction of what is available on the internet. Adding even the best sources will take a long time. I will probably ask someone to help me expand this. (5) You might like to read WP:DEMOLISH as well. James500 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's important to distinguish mentions of the owner from notability of the publishing company. Many of the references appear to fail that test. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Many of the references fail no such test. James500 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any personal or professional relationship with the company or any of the persons who were associated with it? If so, please disclose here. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is a preposterous suggestion and most certainly a personal attack. It would be like me accusing you of working for one of the company's competitors. I do, however, strongly object to ultra-deletionism, something that is per se incompatible with the aims of the project and, indeed, with common sense. And I could use much stronger words than that. James500 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Many of the references fail no such test. James500 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's important to distinguish mentions of the owner from notability of the publishing company. Many of the references appear to fail that test. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. I am not obliged to find sources for someone who has very obviously made no attempt to find them himself and is also wilfully shutting his eyes to what is already in the article. (2) There are non-trivial secondary sources already present in the article in abundance. (3) GNG says that significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material". The biographies of Philip Cohen do contain significant coverage of Oceana Publications itself, even if their main topic is Cohen. In any event, if Cohen is BIO1E, in the sense that he is notable because he founded the company (and he does have an obituary in the NYT, which is normally regarded as conclusive proof of notability, because he founded the company), all his notability will contribute to the company. (4) I have added only a small fraction of what is available on the internet. Adding even the best sources will take a long time. I will probably ask someone to help me expand this. (5) You might like to read WP:DEMOLISH as well. James500 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)