Talk:Annick Press

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Hi,

I've noticed that an entry about Annick Press has been posted and that there are some issues with it. As I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, as a representitive of Annick I am unable to make the changes that would fix the concerns. (I have tried to add information before in a purely factual and transparent way in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines as I understood them and met with insurmountable difficulty.) There is certainly enough press that makes Annick fit the "Notability" requirements both in it's own right, and in the context of other Canadian Children's publishers entries included in Wikipedia, and I would love to see the changes that would alleviate the "Advertising" concerns. Please let me know if there is any info I can provide or anything I could/should do. Thanks in advance for help/suggestions. Annick Press Representative 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re removal of PROD tag[edit]

I respectfully disagree that this is a non-notable company or that this is advertising. (I should also say that although I am Canadian I have absolutely no connection with the press.) They publish an extremely well-known and best-selling Canadian children's author, Robert Munsch, which makes them somewhat more than a tiny small press; I've actually heard of them, and I don't have kids. I agree that some more citations would be useful and I will try to find some and add them. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as was noted in a "hangon" tag that had been applied to the PROD tag (I've removed both), Quill and Quire, Canada's leading publication about the publishing industry, is regrettably behind a paywall. This is an article that would probably bolster notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that a publishing company does not inherit notability from its authors, and whether or not you have personally heard of them is irrelevant. A single source behind a paywall that might address the topic in detail is not convincing proof of notability. Before I potentially waste time at AfD, do you have any sources that you know would meet WP:N? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly right to note that "I've heard of it" is not a valid argument; consider it withdrawn. I rather thought that the imprimatur of the Canadian government trying to make this company known contributed meaningfully to its notability, added to the easily-noted citations from Quill and Quire, but apparently your opinion differs. I find it troubling that you would suggest that AfD is a waste of your time; my understanding of the AfD process is that it requests the Wikipedia community to assess an article to see if it meets our standards, and in problematic cases like this, particularly those where an experienced administrator has felt sufficiently convinced of notability to remove a prod tag and an editor apparently disagrees, having the opinion of a larger group would be the best way of moving forward. If you feel it would be a waste of your time to take this article to AfD, feel free to not do that; if you'd like me to assist, I'd be happy to let the community decide the fate of this article and will nominate it myself. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that I thought all AfD was wasteful; I think AfD would be a waste if ten minutes later you unveiled another source to settle the matter. If someone actually pays to read the source and either (A) assures us that it does address the topic in depth, or (B) uses it to add significant detail to the article, that would be enough for me. I don't think probably notable is good enough; I want to be certain this is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favour of deletion, but feel AfD may be the best way forward so there's no longer a question-mark over the article. Discounting articles from Q&Q because we they're behind a paywall seems akin to discounting information from a book because we've not bought it. The number of articles a search returns on the Q&Q site isn't small either. However, I can find no further corroborative evidence for notability on Google. Apart from AfD the only other option would be to places a Citations Needed notice and revisit the topic in a couple of months. Jnthn0898 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it occurred to me that just because Q&Q is behind a paywall cannot possibly mean that the entire Canadian publishing industry is non-notable, simply that we have to look for other ways of measuring notability. I regard what little we can see before the paywall kicks in as being indicative, in that non-notable companies don't usually have the comings and goings of their senior officers considered as being newsworthy. This is the kind of evidence that I look for when trying to consider notability for topics where the usual sources are just not available for one reason or another. It's true that notability is not inherited, but having notable authors on one's list must be an indication of the relative size, importance, etc., of the company; it would be very rare for a publishing company's notability to be considered in and of itself without any reference to its authors, I think. I thought I would look at some similar companies and see what kind of evidence is being proffered and revisit this topic shortly. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Raincoast Books, a prominent Canadian publisher whose Wikipedia entry is bolstered almost entirely by a list of its (prominent) authors and references by the CBC. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dispute the notablity of that one, since the CBC source clearly meets WP:N. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll start the AfD to resolve this ambiguity. If someone either finds a better source or checks Q&Q (see above) I'll just withdraw the nomination. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my local library will have paper-based files of Q&Q; I'll see what I can do. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Annick Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annick_Press&oldid=1198775579"