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. Tone 08:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlhammer Verlag

[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 appear to be notable. The two references provided are internal to the company, and are only supporting information in the infobox. The body of the article is completely unreferenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: I'm having a hell of a time finding secondary, third-party sources for this article (even searching for it just turns up stuff published by Kohlhammer), so I'm for deletion, so long as all the links to it are replaced by the Template:Interlanguage links. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since Rathfelder has taken it upon himself to clean up my mess. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publisher founded in 1849. First scientific paperback series on the German market. Annual revenue 64.1 million Euros The notability does not have to be online. Nor in English. Perhaps you should look in the files of the Stuttgarter Zeitung? Rathfelder (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires independent third-party reliable sources. For all we know, the information currently in the article is a fairy-tale -- I don't think it is, but there's no AGF for article notability, it has to be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just dug through Stuttgart Zeitung's (available) catalog and couldn't find anything usable on the article. Closest was Kohlhammer employees complaining about traffic congestion in Stuttgart. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe that a 150 year old publisher has no coverage, but WP:NCORP should not be handwaved. Dewiki does have one source that looks independent: ^[1] (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Franz-Josef Sehr (2005), Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach e. V. (ed.), "Entwicklung des Brandschutzes", 125 Jahre Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach (in German), Beselich, pp. 116-117, ISBN 978-3-926262-03-5((citation)): CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Buidhe: Do you have access to that source? If so, what does it say about the publisher? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you certain about the ISBN? There's no listing on BookFinder [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a summary of the German article. But sadly German Wikipedia seems much less strict on references than English. However I find no shortage of quite detailed news about the companies current operations. And maybe you should look at the newspaper they published, the Neue Deutsche Familienblatt. Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a rule, in any article which I've nominated for deletion, I'm pretty quick to withdraw the nomination or change to "merge" or so on, as the circumstances change, but I don't think that's the case here. I thank Rathfelder for their edits to the article, expanding it with sourced information. However, the core of the article -- what is now the "History" section and the section on the paperback line -- remain completely unsourced. I do not think that the threshold for keeping the article has been passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I could just axe those passages until such time as they can be sourced. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the consensus here is to "keep", I wouldn't suggest you do that. The article is only 5 months old, it can live for a while longer with "CN" tags in them. Where did you get the info from when you write the article? One of the two internal documents? If so, it would be better to put that in as a ref, along with a "Primary source inline" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I translated the German Wikipedia article directly. It is reasonable to assume the German editor(s) got their info from Kohlhammer's website, so I'll look it over. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a historic publisher, right? The German National Library holds thousands of publications, and we think about deletion? Really? - We can drop statements that seem contentious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: This is a review of one of their publications by a leading German newspaper. The publisher is linked to more than 500 articles here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, look and stop talk about deletion. Yes, the article should be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm willing to give publishes of significant works the benefit of the doubt, especially a century-old one. The existence of the de.wiki article is also a positive sign. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2020 (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.