Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberties Press

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. Oshwah's rationale for deletion seems to have been largely obviated by the addition of independent sources to the article. Deor (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liberties Press

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising, fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. All of the sources listed are from the official website and are not independent. Lacks notability under the guideline. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some coverage in RS, but so far it's slow going. There are a massive, massive amount of reviews and comments about the books they publish, but not really that much coverage for the publisher itself. This is kind of one of those weird times where WP:NOTINHERITED can get pretty frustrating because the books are mostly notable and Liberties Press is the first publisher of the work (as opposed to other publishers that just reprint previously published work almost solely), but this still falls under "notability is not inherited" for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep or userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Liberties Press. I'm kind of undecided about this for the most part, but I'm defaulting to a weak keep on this one. There is a ton of coverage for the books LP has put out, but not really that much for the specific publisher. I did find quite a bit for an injunction filed against the company, but what is really pushing it to a weak keep for me is that the publisher has received coverage from the Irish Times from 2003 and as recent as 2014. I won't argue heavily if the deletion discussion ends with this getting deleted, though. If it is deleted, I volunteer to userfy the page myself and I'll keep an eye out for more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs improving (bricks and mortar offices!!)PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Publishing a notable book automatically makes the publisher notable. Critical appraisal of a book is critical appraisal of the people responsible for it. The two things cannot be separated. NOTINHERITED, which is only an essay, has no application in this case. It only works in the other direction. James500 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of putting this is that deleting the publisher of a large number of notable books would blow a massive hole in the encyclopedia, in terms of depriving those articles of context. James500 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Respectfully, some of the reasons stated above are just plain wrong. Right now, the citations are pretty poor but cite significant articles on them in the two Irish papers of record, the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, which should make them pass WP:GNG almost by default. Further, the Melanie Verwoerd publishing decision attracted a great deal of radio and TV attention in Ireland that hasn't yet been reflected in the citations. Looking over their list of published books, it includes a surprising number of Ireland's best known authors. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is notable by default and even the article about the Verwoers-saga is hardly more than a passing mention as the article is about the book, not the publisher. The Banner talk 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable, in-depth sources to establish notability WP:GNG and I also noticed over one hundred published reviews of their books in a HighBeam search. I am One of Many (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.