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. Sandstein 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet dealing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not an expert in publishing, but this article exclusively cites the website of Andrew Malcolm (author), and appears to consist of WP:OR/WP:SOAPBOXING. I have removed similar content from the Malcolm article. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fix and Merge Important concept and publishing article, which includes case law. Needs more sources, and better links. Meets WP:GNG. Ideally, references need to be broadened out. But this is a ground for improvement, not a ground for deletion.

That being said, I think that the use of the block quotes (which now stand out, now that I reformatted them as block quotes – See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Quotation cleanup) transgress WP:Fair use and need to be cut back and paraphrased. This is a WP:Copyright violation that needs to be remedied.

Additionally, when I used ref fill to tweak the citations, it became apparent that all but one are from the same source! This needs to be fixed. New sources are a must.

Here are four candidates for merger:

• Advance against royalties
• Author
• Publishing
• Royalty payment

If that happens, then some of the concerns that have prompted this AFD can be alleviated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen: Righto, but we need new references and some of the discussion of case law currently borders on WP:OR, so someone will need to put a lot of effort into this. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Endymion.12 Message received. I am busy in the real world, which intrudes on my Wikidiction, and time crunched. I can't get to this for a week at least. Maybe not even then. My initial boffing around came up zero. If we tried it from a legal angle, reading the cases and then Sherdardizing them (oops, I am showing my age), we might be able to find something. We could also try to backtrack from the sources we already have. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the existing references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it go by a different name? We have Publishing#Book_publishing but no article dedicated to just publishing of books which could hold all of this in its controversy section. Dream Focus 17:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and decide what can be merged somewhere and where to stick it. No sense deleting valid information we can put somewhere. Dream Focus 19:23, 23 January 2019 (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.