Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outskirts 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outskirts press[edit]

I started off trying to fix this article, but came to the conclusion that it is one of the most blatant pieces of promotion that I've come across. However, it does appear that it has published one or two books by reasonably notable authors. What do other people think, please? Deb (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The place is pretty well-known in the writing community. There's probably some reliable sources to replace this with a reasonable stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep, passes WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability even though the article requires a considerable amount of rework. Jll (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it pass these? I don't see many references on google, and most of those that are there are clearly not independent. (I'm not saying it's not notable, but I don't see clear evidence that it is.) Deb (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget I said that. You've done a damn good job of cleaning it up. Deb (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Deb. The company has received significant coverage in some secondary sources, for example the Denver Business Journal citations in the article and a review at [1], and I think its having published some notable books strengthens its hand. However having spent a futile half an hour trying to find more good secondary sources, there doesn't seem to be that much out there and so I think it is fairly borderline, and have changed my opinion to weak keep. Jll (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue expanding per [2], [3], and [4]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly press releases released by this company. This and this are all books released by this company (or the words "outskirts press" in that order, as a coincidental pair), at least five pages in. Gesturing vaguely at Google searches isn't sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plenty of vanity presses around, this one doesn't seem notable. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to expand based upon a growing number of sources. While using Google and searching for Outskirts Press, the 3rd listing on page 1 offers a 3rd party review of Outskirts Press in comparison with 9 similar companies. In this review of the top 10 self-publishing providers, Outskirts Press ranks 3rd, bested by iUniverse and AuthorHouse (both of which are in Wikipedia). In fact, even the #7 company, Xlibris, also appears in Wikipedia. Seems to me the Gold, Silver, and Bronze companies of this unaffiliated reviewer ( www.top10reviews.com ) should appear in WikiPedia, since The New York Times cited the importance of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia reference. Then, in continuing my Google search, the 4th listing on page 1 offers a thorough review of Outskirts Press from not only a 3rd party source, but from a competitor. This competitor seems to consider Outskirts Press notable, going so far as to compose a comprehensive primer on Outskirts Press on its own website. Going further on the Google search, the 5th listing on page 1 references a 3rd party source for a non-fiction reference book titled “The Fine Print of Self-Publishing” by Mark Levine. Outskirts Press appears in this 3rd party source on pages 121 to 129. Another 3rd party book, “Top Self-Publishing Firms” by Stacie Vander Pol organizes self-publishing companies by size and average sales rank of its authors. This 3rd party book places Outskirts Press as the #1 book in its “Large and Medium Sized” firms category on pages 50-52. Continuing my Google search, the 9th listing on page 1 offers a 3rd party review of Outskirts Press posted by blogger Mick Rooney, posted on July 25, 2008, which states that the current title count on Amazon is 2800+ and further states “One only has to browse reputable POD writer forums in the United States to see how popular this publisher has become with authors looking to utilized [sic] the print on demand publishing option. They happily mix it in the industry with the big hitters like iUniverse, Authorhouse and Lulu.” (By the way, all three of these other referenced companies are in Wikipedia.). 2800+ titles on Amazon? Sounds notable, especially to those 2800 authors, some of which have their very books listed in Wikipedia. I ask, how can a book be listed in WikiPedia and the publisher is not? So I continued my investigation on Amazon.com and did an advanced book search by publisher. Outskirts Press currently has 4,035 books on Amazon. According to Rooney’s post, they had 2800 on July 25th. In 10 months, Outskirts Press added 1,235 new books to its inventory. That’s 120 new books a month, on average. Isn’t that more than some New York Publishers produce? I looked at the number of titles fellow vanity-publisher Trafford Publishing published last month (March 2009) and it published 89. Yet, Trafford is on WikiPedia and recently survived its own article discussion, by producing 31 fewer titles than Outskirts Press. User A Man in Black (above) is right, Google alone isn’t sourcing, yet in this case, Google alone seems like enough to keep this article, along with the Amazon stats, and let’s not forget The Denver Business Journal citations already included in the article itself, as noted by user Jll (above). 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you dig yourself in any deeper. Deb (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for contributing the article. To sign your name and add the date you put four ~ like this ~~~~.

The first source [5] looks good to me and I have added it.
I am not convinced about the numbers of books argument - using Amazon advanced search (assuming I am using it correctly) shows that Outskirts Press published around 1,600 books in 2008, but this is small in comparison to the 926,000 books in total Amazon lists as published in 2008.
The argument that articles on other similar publishers exist is not a strong one since the Wikipedia inclusion criteria is about "notability" and "verifiability" — if one thing is notable and verifiable then it does not automatically mean that all other things like it are. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay about it.
Self-published books (and blogs) are frequently not considered good sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29), although I have doubts about that here because any book about self-publishing will probably itself be self-published for the sensible reason that it demonstrates the author practices what s/he preaches.

On the other hand, the article now cites two news articles from one source, and links two other independent sources. Jll (talk) 12:56, 24 April 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.