Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authors published by Persephone Books

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. -- Lear's Fool 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors published by Persephone Books

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

Non-encyclopedic; a mere catalog/list of authors who have nothing in common besides having been published or reprinted by one publisher, violative of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. There is nothing of value here for us; a mere listing, if it were necessary at all, would find a more natural place at the article on this particular publisher. Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article on the company itself is very marginal. Better to have a link there to their website where the authors can be listed, and kept up to date without WP editors bothering with it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete Although currently a delete may be in order, but if there is any reason why the list maintained by the company may be less useful than one published on Wikipedia, than please consider this a vote to Keep. Beta M (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely hate, and dont understand, publisher articles which list the authors published, or record label articles which list musicians. unless we have a source showing the author has an EXCLUSIVE publishing relationship, or has been written about as a, or the, major publisher for an author, listing authors is pure puffery. list the TITLES published, not the authors. this is especially true for a publisher like persephone, which apparently does reprints of earlier works. I can publish shakespeare. does that make me notable? no.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:ADVERT This is nothing more than puffery for the publisher. I wonder how it survived being speedied. Roger (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloomsbury has a page exactly the same as this List of authors published by Bloomsbury Publishing which has thus far escaped deletion. The idea behind the list was so that people wishing to create articles for those authors not currently listed would not only have a jumping off point from which to do so, but also be able to find the Wikipedia articles for these authors listed in one place. In any case, very few of Persephone's books are out of copyright since an author has to have died before 1941 in order for it to be out of copyright, so it is hardly the same as republishing Shakespeare. I would have no problem with creating a list with the titles instead, though it seemed simpler and clearer to list the authors alone since many of them have acceptable Wikipedia pages where the titles themselves do not.LambsC (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - you've combined two non-valid arguments here: WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I find neither persuasive, unsurprisingly. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No prizes for guessing which article beginning with "List of authors published by..." is going to face "trial by AFD" next. Roger (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those 'intersection' type lists where the separate topics (in this case the publisher and the authors) may have received coverage, but not in context of each other. If reliable sources do not consider this a notable intersection then neither should we. Polequant (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2011 (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.