This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Eden (talk | contribs) at 11:35, 21 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:35, 21 September 2006 by John Eden (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Unpopular Books
- del unpopular unnotable and unverifiable publisher. Its website is undeveloped. Why I have an impression that it wants to disprove its title using wikipedia as promo vehicle? I smell a big rat nest around this publisher, which looks like publish A LOT in wikipedia:
- Can someone check out the following creations which hinge on unpopular.org.uk?
- I don't say that they are not OK. I am just a bit suspicious. `'mikka (t) 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know anything about the articles that you mention, but I own a few of their publications. They definitely exist. - N1h1l 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Existing is not considered a reason for keeping an article. See WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- My comments were directed at the claim that Unpopular Books was an "unverifiable publisher". - N1h1l 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear. (I thought it is crystal clear in modern times): anyone who has spare $900 and some pirated or free sofrware may arrange a full-blown publishing house in a garage. `'mikka (t) 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- My comments were directed at the claim that Unpopular Books was an "unverifiable publisher". - N1h1l 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Existing is not considered a reason for keeping an article. See WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability or in fact much content at all. An under-construction text based official website and dubious ghits (admittedly a very crude test in this case) don't help. Not a hope of passing WP:CORP.
- The articles listed by mikka are in desperate need of investigation. London Psychogeographical Association, for example, is a mash of unverifiability, weasel words and border-line nonsense. The article states that this is a "largely fictitious organisation" and that it is "best understood in the context of situationist praxis". I think a spate of AfD nominations may be in order. --IslaySolomon 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable for a number of reasons, including publishing material by Jean Barrot for the first time in the UK and translating works by Asger Jorn. The connection with the LPA is also notable as this organisation's texts inspired authors such as Iain Sinclair who have used psychogeography in their work. The official website does not include a list of their publications and I have added to and amended the list on the page concerned by referring to books that I own. I am not sure if the quality or lack of other pages or their authors is relevant to the issue in hand. John Eden 08:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and investigate. While the fact that Unpopular Books printed Decadence of the Shamans: Or Shamanism as a Key to the Secrets of Communism may be poetically apt, this seems to be a non-notable publisher dedicated to some minor and unintelligible ideology. I'm not sure that WP:CORP applies here, since this seems to be some kind of marginal movement in art or politics rather than a business. If the business guidelines were applied it falls well short of meeting them, but like all guidelines, they only define what is per se notable. What concerns me is that Mikka's articles seem to be a walled garden. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all No assertion of notability (for the publisher) and per walled garden argument (for the rest) <-- I know it not a deletion criterion but let's WP:IAR and make a reasonable judgment here. Zunaid 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- can someone direct me to the notability criteria for political and/or artistic movements, then? John Eden 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- AFAIK there are no specific notability criteria beyond the most basic ones for political or artistic movements. Most of the articles on Mikka's list seem to revolve around some sort of vague melange of Marxism and Dadaism, which makes me wondered whether these articles, any one of which might seem an eccentric performance, might be merged into some umbrella article about this particular tendency. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- If there are no specific criteria, then this discussion becomes a bit nebulous. I am happy to revise the article on the basis that Unpopular Books is notable for the works it has published rather than for being a publishing company. Googling for the company name alongside names of its authors like Stewart Home or Jean Barrot or Asger Jorn seems to generate a sensible number of hits. John Eden 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)