Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronin 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin press[edit]

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

Non-notable start-up publishing company that does not meet WP:CORP. A Google News search [1] turns up a few ghits for another company with the same name, thus adding WP:RS problems to the article. Warrah (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I speedied it at 7:42 this morning, it was deleted three minutes later, and then it was recreated an hour after that with, as far as I can tell, exactly the same content, establishing no notability whatsoever. Oh wait, I just checked again and can tell the content is at least slightly different, because the first incarnation revealed that this company was founded, not just in 2009, but in December 2009. Brand-new company, not notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom; added advert, no ref, and npov tags to the article. --MWOAP (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Owen Calvert: I completely understand your justification behind deleting this listing; however, it was not my intention to breach your rules, or cause any friction with the listing I have recently made. I did not fully read the terms, I admit - rather skimmed them, but I can see that this listing does not differ from others on the small press list. This is simply a newly established small press which I felt should be listed next to others of identical nature. In regards to the "December 2009" comment, this was a lapse of thought. The website has been in existence since May 2009, and I can easily prove this upon request. I purposefully edited the article to come across as impartial! The reasoning behind this listing is not to advertise or promote, but rather attain the recognition that this organisation is a "British Small Press" since organisations like this are very nearly extinct, in my opinion. I sincerely hope you take my comments into account when making your decision. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnage0 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Even I at times mess up the policy or didn't get a part of it. My concern still stands with NPOV, you have the words "small" & "Although" which indicate an opinion. Wiki likes to stay neutral. Also, this article has no sources at all. We here at wiki need reliable soueces. (see WP:RELY) Last, with your mission statement, it might be more of an npov but I think it has a bit of advert in it. One option which you might want to consider is userfiying the article. (see WP:USERFY). Then you can request that the article be deleted through articles for speedy deletion (author requested-CSD A7). You can then build on it there without the risk of deletion. I can do the userfy process for you if it seems confusing. Again thanks for your contribs. Let me know if you need anything. --MWOAP (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as company with no notability presented. A Google search confirms that there are other companies with very similar names, but nothing about this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Calvert: I am not sure where to reply to the above.. I am hoping this will be a good a place as any. MWOAP, firstly I would like to sincerely thank you for providing a detailed response with an empathetic tone. I have edited my listing a little, removing the mission statement and "small" and "Although" in the Noteable books section, although ironically enough I did not see any problem with "Although". If you refer to Burning Deck Press, you can see that I have copy/pasted their wording as I was unsure and wanted to adhere to what is suitable and already present in the listings. As for the ambiguity concerning google, I have requested a re cache of the site as it is outdated. This should resolve any uncertainty in this respect. There are indeed similar presses around, but when I list ronin I always try and preserve the lower case lettering to set it apart. Google lists "ronin press" currently fourth, and as follows:

I am extremely new at this, although I have used and respected wikipedia for years. I hope that with my amendments considered, I could keep the current (edited and neutral) revised listing I have presented to you. Thank you again for your consideration. Carnage0 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for replying/editing up this article. Although could indicate that a company or person did not do enough work to get something going, I don't know the exact way you used it so it could have been fine. If you have any other questions for me, feel free to let me know. (Note: User:Fetchcomms may reply for me, as I am out the next few days.) --MWOAP (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Owen, this company is not very notable. There are no sources to establish its notability. I'm afraid that until it receives significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (such as news articles), it will be deleted. fetchcomms☛ 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any mention. thanks to the creator for his comments. if, in the future, this press does get any press, and if someone attempts an article again, PLEASE be sure to cite the references clearly. its really hard to do searches for this business, considering that Ronin Publishing is often called ronin press, and also covers counterculture works. oh, and regarding other small press listings: WP is currently overrun with highly promotional articles for essentially nonnotable small presses. the standards WP uses really make it hard to justify many of these articles here, so "WP:this also exists" is hard to use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Calvert: Thank you for your responses, I think I am fighting a lost battle here. I will respect and adhere to your comments, and accept the deletion of the article until I gain notability. I would like the pursue the 'userfying' of this article, but as MWOAP noted, it is complicated and I have no idea. If this can be done, I would sincerely appreciate it! I am glad that you take such strict measures in this process, and fully respect your decisions, although I am disappointed not to have my own article on your site. Thank you again for considering my defence and for hearing me out, I am glad you have seen my side of all of this. Owen Carnage0 (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it does become notable someday I'm sure it'll have an article, but we'd greatly prefer if persons directly connected with ronin press aren't the ones to contribute this hypothetical future article. Please see WP:COI for more guidance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copied the page's content over to User:Carnage0. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niteshift and Joechill. I could see this surviving if there was some external press coverage, but I don't see any there. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (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.