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 Delete. One RS citation, and even in that, reference to this company is fairly trivial. Dweller (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filiquarian Publishing LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No notability asserted, and it doesn't appear that reliable sourcing is out there to support a notability claim.Delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is asserted in the lead: the online retailer Buy.com lists 339 titles under the imprint and some titles score highly in the Amazon.com sales ranking. It is a company making cutting-edge use of "print on demand" technology and as such has engendered main-stream media interest, including a piece in Fortune magazine. The article is not uncited: at the time of this posting there are nine separate sources listed. (Included are the sources for my assertions here: I have not repeated them in this post.) Other citations (in addition to the nine quoted) are in the form of inline links to compare the text in the company's published works with the original Wikipedia sources: the compared texts are themselves the source. However this format has drawn criticism from one detractor (now undergoing a one-week block for contentious editing in regard to the page) and these could be converted to more explicit footnotes if required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: having read the instructions after making this post, it seems that I need to disclose myself as the article creator. Apologies for the omission. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are citations offered, but they don't seem to be enough to indicate notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the company. The Fortune article is not about the company itself, and doesn't seem to give significant coverage to this particular company. The other sources are forum and blog posts (not reliable), from the company's website (not independent), from websites that are selling the company's books(not independent, or significant coverage of the company itself), or from whois (not significant coverage). I'm not sure the number of imprints is very useful in assessing notability. Do you know of other sources that can be used to establish notability? Silverfish (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP as non-notable. No reliable sources to assert notability, and a news search finds nothing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, having read multiple edits by Moonraker and Dougweller, it is apparent that these individuals have a vendeta against Filiquarian Publishing, llc. My immediate fear is that the company could decide what these two individuals are writing is slanderous / libelous and that Wikipedia could be held responsible. The anonymous poster that has been discussed at length a number of valid points which would make be believe that either Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnldfl (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the anonymous post above: May I assert that my intention was to provide a neutral and fair article. This is the reason that I did not include in my initial posting here in support of "notability" the company's republishing, for money, of Wikipedia articles: I did not want "Wikipedia as part of the story". It is illogical to complain that the article is part of a vendetta, when the tendentious posts by the IP editor only started after the creation of the article. I do not recommend that every post the less-than-edifying history of this piece be reviewed: it would be highly tedious and unlikely to throw much light on the proper subject of the "keep/delete" review here. It would, however, demonstrate that the two editors named are the victims of a vendetta, and not the perpetrators. The IP editor concerned is currently serving a one-week block for harassment.

The piece is not libellous: every fact is sourced. Some sources are not up to the normal WP standard, and in some cases these were submitted to community assessment on the talk page before inclusion (example here). There are few valid points in the IP poster's numerous emendations to the page, but where found they have been copy-edited for retention. Examples here and here. Indeed the other editor named above has sought to engage with him/her over the article. One paragraph was deleted in response to an error the IP editor pointed out (example here).

The claim that "Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention?" is nonsensical. It probably falls short of the no legal threats policy, but I would ask that contributors to the discussion remain civil. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no way did I threaten Old Moonraker. I just stated a fear that I have by his actions. I have gone through the history section of this article and am worried about a number of things he has written. This article quickly became more of a hit job on a company that he is not happy with than an actual informative article. That is why I voted for deletion. Please don't bring personalities into this. It needs to be also said that if PediaPress is not notable enough for an article, which has gotten a great deal of media attention, than why would this similar company without media attention be notable enough to get an article.—Preceding comment added by --JNLDFL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want personalities brought into this, why did you attack Moonraker and me? You have specifically accused us of carrying out a vendetta and of possibly trying to cause a lawsuit. You could have brought up these issues on either the article's talk page or my talk page or Moonraker's, but you decided to attack us here. If you really had read the history, you'd see how I responded to the complaint that Elibron did not own Filiquarian by removing the statement with an edit summary "I can't verify the Elibron connection so I've taken it out". The anonymous IP editor clearly has a grudge against PediaPress, but if you think he has any other valid arguments please put them on the article's talk page. Your arguments are about fixing the article, not a reason for deletion. I don't know if the mention in Fortune Magazine is enough or not, but it is not 'no media attention'. (I have looked hard for anything else and come up dry, so if that isn't enough, I agree, it should be deleted). As for PediaPress, could you please point me to where it was decided it was not notable enough for an article?

I would like an apology for what is a pretty unpleasant attack on other editors.

Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I did not attack you or Old Moonraker. I merely stated that your actions were worrisome (and I stand by my previous statements). The fortune article states that this company a. publishes books and b. uses print on demand technology. Those are merely facts, and are in no way newsworthy. There are over 7,500 companies that publish books using print on demand technology, but that alone doesn't make them notable enough to deserve their own page. Your contributions and Old Moonraker's contributions to this article are laced with attacks on this company for which the article was started. There is an attack on the fact that the webpage doesn't include contact information. There is an attack on the type of content that this company uses. There is a comparison section of books and their wikipedia counterparts which appears to be an attack and doesn't even have a reference to state where or how the comparison was made. There is clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information to make it sound like this company is breaking gfdl rules (which IMHO based on the facts they clearly are not). For me to say that your actions could be a legal concern is not an attack on you, but is how I realistically intrepret your actions (and Old Moonraker) and once again I find them to be worrisome. —Preceding comment added by --JNLDFL (talk) —Preceding comment —Preceding comment was added at 12:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information on gfdl rules? I may have contributed to that bit. I want to see the diffs of the edits you claim I made. I don't see how this can be construed as anything else but a personal attack ('clearly false', 'intentionally misleading') and you should be providing evidence. Doug Weller (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I have mentioned specifics instances above and have not personally attacked you. Stating facts in not an attack. The reality is that you apparently have a problem with this company that you have attacked and should abstain from posting about this company due to your obvious negative opinion. Jnldfl (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you refuse to provide any evidence that I have actually been involved in anything. [1] shows me amalagamating some stuff that was scatterd and adding the missing words 'comply with' to the sentence " Filiquarian Publishing, llc claims to comply with all legalities related to using wikipedia content". [2] shows me removing some nonsense about sheepdogs, Filiquarian making toaster ovens, and the sentence "Accept for the fact that Filiquarian Publishing does have web addresses for author information in every single book they publish." which was an IP editor's personal comment and not backed up by the source he gave. [3] is where I removed the same IP editor's statement that all legalities were being followed and all rules complied with (again with a source, a blog, that made no such claim) with Filiquarian "claims to all legalities related to using wikipedia content in their books by following the GNU Free Documentation license although they apparently do not meet the requirement that calls upon anyone distributing the work to acknowledge "the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." which is both tentative and so far as I know accurate. I did not and have never asserted that they do not meet the requirements, only that it appears that they do not. Is that clearly false or intentionally misleading? The pdf of a book I read didn't have links, etc. And finally [4] where I removed the speedy delete tag. Closing Admin, I'm sorry that I've had to post this and that the editor attacking me insisted on doing so here, perhaps you would like to remove the attacks and any responses of mine. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I think most of the problems with the article were due to an IP editor, possibly because he feels mistreated by PediaPress, I have been thinking about the notablity issue and I agree that the Fortune mention, which seems to be the only RS comment on it, isn't enough to establish notability. Doug Weller (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Doug, I never attacked you.Jnldfl (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, I note that you wrote "clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information to make it sound like this company is breaking gfdl rules" and "Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention?" which I can't construe as anything other than an attack. I have provided the diffs for my edits to the article and asked you what was wrong with them, and all you do is claim you haven't attacked me. Now if what you mean by that is that you accept that my edits were not false or intentionally misleading or that you think there is any chance that my edits were an attempt to provoke legal action, please say that clearly. If not, then please be specific about what edits of mine you think are clearly false or intentionally misleading and why. Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 12 July 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.