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. Singu larity 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg publishers

[edit]

This is a publishing company from Oxford. Their only claim to notability is having published one possibly notable book. I don't see how that makes the company meet WP:CORP. A ecis^Brievenbus 18:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WorldCat shows about 200 books of theirs, most of them in hundreds of libraries. First 5 I checked showed 713, 532, 343, 283, 106. Thatmany holdings would usually indicate a very notable academic book, so it seems they publish quite a number of very specialized very successful books. DGG (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this article stands now it is a clear violation of WP:CORP. However, there are still two more days to find independent, reliable third-party sources to ascertain the notability of this publishing house. A quick search can't find any, though. They seem to have published a lot of books though, with 940 hits through BIBSYS, so there probably is something written about them out there. However, WP:N is built around published sources about them, and it is not sufficient for them to publish a lot of noone writes about them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline for things we have no rational criteria about. the only policy relevant is V, and there's enough factual data to write an article. The number of titlse & library holdings shows them to be notable, so we have a real criterion, instead of the accident of sourcing. DGG (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2 days have passed and no independent, reliable sources were found, delete per WP:CORP. If reliable sources confirming notability are found just recreate this article.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an academic publishing house. --Blechnic (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd interpret that as meaning that even a relatively small academic publishing house is notable. I think that is the case, as I said earlier. Having published a considerable number of books is, by common sense, notability as a significant company in their field. 2RS=N is intended as a flexible guideline. As we can verify the information given about them, it meets WP:V. I point out that it's important to have these articles, as background for the nature of the books they publish when they are referred to in Wikipedia references. DGG (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per full agreement with DGG's arguments. This is clearly an academic publishing house, and the article was just as clearly written by someone interested in a single book or type of books--but subject publishes a great deal more than that. An expansion of the article would be great. Darkspots (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Such articles are particularly helpful in building Wikipedia, in deciding the reliability and strength of the sources they publish. Here are some other sources or ELs [1] [2][3] [4] [5] in addition to their "about us" , which may help in building the article.John Z (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing vote per the references provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced with reliable, independent sources that ascertains notability; meets WP:CORP. Good work John Z. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:49, 31 May 2008 (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.