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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PediaPress[edit]

Fails general and specific notability guidelines, the coverage by third party sources is minor and concerned exclusively with the partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, making the creation of a substantial article satisfying NPOV and V impossible. Additional concerns of undue promotion due to the presence of PediaPress all over the site. Cenarium (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with complex rationale. I don't often cite WP:IAR, but I think this is one of the rare cases when it applies. -- I do acknowledge that by strict application of policy, this article should be deleted. According to WP:WIARM, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, Wikipedia's objectives as a free, online encyclopaedia and its open source philosophy are supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and Pedia Press directly and financially. Let's not bite the hand that might feed us: I think it behoves us as Wikipedians not to delete this article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Received two paragraphs worth of notice from The Guardian; no opinion on whether the other sources are reliable or not. The article is written in good English and does not contain puffing that goes beyond what the sources support. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep based on S Marshall's rationale. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking "weak" based on the references Drmies added. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even without Marshall's rationale! (But good call, SM ;) There are plenty of sources available in German and English (via Google News) to establish that this is notable well within the rules, and I've added a few to the article. Hey, we get 10%--I can't wait to see my first check. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, effectly works as a commercial, good example of WPPOV (articles about Wikipedia, Wikimedia and such given undue weight and importance). /Grillo (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grillo, have you looked at the references? Surely you agree that the Guardian, the (German-language) PC World, and the Berner Zeitung are reliable sources, and that they do more than mention PediaPress in passing. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely they are. But all of them are mentioning Pediapress in reference to "now it's possible to print Wikipedia articles". This could be mentioned in Wikipedia, not more. /Grillo (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is somewhat self-referential, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for Wikipedia to put a "create a book" box in everybody's sidebar by default, and then declare the organisation behind this "non-notable". There might have been a case for moving the article to the Wikipedia namespace until the whole things gains more momentum; but as it's already received coverage from the The Graudian and others I'd say this case no longer exists. If the article violates the letter of any notability rules (I don't think it does), let's ignore the rules' letter in favour of their spirit. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Google/the sources mentioned on this page which seem to assert notability requirements in my eyes. FunPika 18:55, 8 March 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.