Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcbeatle Press

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcbeatle Press

[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)

having rights to publish notable works does not equate to notability, there are 0 sources covering Arcbeatle as far as I can tell, so fails WP:NCORP Praxidicae (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can find some online information about Arcbeatle's book releases. Here, for example, is an article about one of their Doctor Who-related releases. Here's another about the same. Here's one of several interviews of contributors to Arcbeatle's 10,000 Dawns anthology series.

As I said on the talk page, I'm just a Doctor Who (and, to a lesser extent, 10kD) fan, not an expert Wikipedian. I'm not sure if these are the sorts of sources Wikipedia looks for? But it seems that way. Apologies if this is unhelpful. But if the demand is for coverage of Arcbeatle Press, here's some.

(EDIT: found another one.) --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article, similarly, interviews are not coverage, they are not independent. None of this is in-depth, meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware my liking some of Arcbeatle Press's past releases is neither here not there. I mentioned the fact to explain that it's how I got here and that consequently, not being much of a Wikipedian, I may be wrong about policies sometimes. Not because I thought the fact would have anything to do with whether the page should be deleted.

At any rate, not all of the articles I found were interviews. And each of these articles is wholly about an Arcbeatle Press release; I'm unsure what you'd call "in-depth and meaningful" if not that. Do you mean we should find an article about Arcbeatle Press qua Arcbeatle Press, rather than being about a specific book or series they printed? That seems like a weirdly high bar for a publisher. Publishers rarely attract media attention as publishers, removed from their output.

Again, in real world terms, Arcbeatle Press is much the same thing as Obverse Books. What kinds of sources and claims to notability does Obverse have that Arcbeatle lacks? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I'd like to wrap my head around this/see what the demands are that Arcbeatle's case should meet if it's to remain on Wikipedia. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources can be found (in which case please ping me here). This is (supposedly) a business, so subject to the relatively strict requirements of WP:NCORP, and at the moment it shows no sign of having any chance of meeting those. Actually it shows no sign of existence either: there's no publication listed in Worldcat (that compares with about 124 for Obverse Books, or about 5.8 million for the Oxford University Press). There's not one verifiable hit on Gbooks; the first title that comes up is the first listed in our article, 10,000 Dawns by James Wylder; however, according to Gbooks, that title is published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform – i.e., it is self-published. According to this patently non-reliable source, Arcbeatle was Wylder's personal imprint. @arcbeatle also seems to be his Twitter handle. We might consider a redirect to our page on him, if we had one, but he seems to be resoundingly non-notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of any significant independent coverage. Per ATD I did try to find a suitable redirect target but none of the various lists of Doctor Who spinoffs we have seemed appropriate if they are also a publisher of other non-DW related works. P-K3 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 25 May 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.