Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leyden Publishing

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyden Publishing[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, all available significant coverage is from primary sources that do not contribute towards establishing notability. Searching on Google Scholar for either Leyden Publishing, Michael Leyden or Peter Leyden yields no meaningful results; searching on Google Books turns up trivial mentions and books they published, but no notability-establishing secondary coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, Education, Australia, and New Zealand. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on the article talk:

An editor has queried the notability of this series of companies.

The Leyden series of explorers and civics "illustrated novels" in the 1950s were a brilliant innovation, and nothing like them has existed before or since. It comes from a time when a "new nationalism" was developing in Australia. The books represent, like folk song at the time, an alternative, subversive version of our history.

In the 1950s at primary school I adored these books, learned virtually everything I know about Australia in the post-colonial period from them, and from them I developed a lifetime yen to become an explorer. Leyden taught a whole generation of Australians their history, with information that was available nowhere else and which the current generation knows nothing about.

The books had extraordinarily wide penetration due to their network of travellers and I think their claim that most primary Australian schools had copies is correct. That the company was able to continue in the family for more than fifty years indicates their popularity.

As well, this is probably the only example I know of a successful sustained enterprise by "political progressives". That they now give away their resources shows their original purpose was not the making of money but the improvement of society.

Like a lot of "quiet achiever" direct sales companies, there was not much attempt to obtain public recognition beyond sales. There is a steady stream of newspaper advertising for representatives over about 30 years, and not much other publicity.

I don't accept the argument of User Rosguill that products (often audiovisual) have to be on google scholar or google books before they are to be regarded as "notable". This is an inappropriate and selective choice of "sources". These people are not and never were "scholars" though they did hire scholars including Dorothy Hewett to write the books.

Do I really have to publish an article on this company before I can get it into Wikipedia? Redabyss1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding my argument a bit--I'm not saying that Leyden Publishing's work needs to have been on Google Scholar; I'm saying that I am unable to find any coverage of Leyden Publishing on Google Scholar (or elsewhere). We need independent coverage in published reliable sources, your own analysis of the subject's significance absent sourcing is not sufficient. So yes, in a sense, you (or someone else with access to a reliable press) needs to publish independent materials about the company before Wikipedia can write about it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, Rosguill So - I'm contacting the company and other associated parties. I cannot believe a company with a 70 year history of innovation never attracted any public comment. In the meantime I am seeing Leyden works cited quite frequently, therefore making them presumably both notable and useful.

Other small publishers dont seem to fare any better - take a look at the McPhee Gribble stub. Wild & Woolley looks better, but only because the founder wrote a story about it - hardly independent! While WP:NCORP draws the line, surely the ultimate underlying principle must be for Wikipedia that the firms 'made a difference' and these three publishing companies most definitely did.(talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and doesn't show WP:SIGCOV. Citations from independent, reliable, secondary sources either provide a trivial mention or don't really mention the article's subject (rather Peter or Michael Leyden). - GA Melbourne (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any coverage of the publisher itself in ProQuest or general Wikipedia Library search, where I would expect to find articles. The few hits you do get are for books published by Leyden, where the publisher is simply named (nothing about the company itself). Yes, researching and writing articles about publishers can be difficult. My advice for future would be to not start writing the article until you find at least two or three in-depth articles or book chapters about the subject, in reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. In the case of a commercial entity such as this one, you also need to be familiar with WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP criteria (this is a company) for establishing notability, mentions-in-passing only, nothing in-depth nor significant. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 17 January 2023 (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.