Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kogan Page

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kogan Page

[edit]
Kogan Page (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete - the page has been on here for a number of years - this is an update. Additional references being added in now. User talk: Singo66 — Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Okay, I've looked at every one of them again. Oof. All but one are unquestionably not reliable independent secondary sources. Links to the company's own site are excluded as WP:PRIMARY. Most of the rest are online directory listings that appear to be self-published, as evidenced by the same text appearing over and over. A couple of sources are blogs. The one source that might qualify as reliable is the Tech City News article. I don't actually know if they have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, but even if they do, the only mention of the subject on the entire page is at the bottom, where they mention that the author of the article has a book "to be published by Kogan Page in 2016". This is the essence of a trivial mention. Fundamentally, there is just nothing here in this list of sources to support notability as we define it under WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep meets notability criteria WP:GNG with sufficient, reliable and varied citations. user:Msnicki worth googling more extesnively, plenty out there Momononu (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)momononuMomononu (talk)[reply]

Which sources do you rely on? It only takes two but they must be reliable independent and secondary. I've looked at every one of them that has been cited and not one qualifies. Can you identify at least two where you disagree with me? Msnicki (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent verification 1: www.managers.org.uk/insights/news/2015/february/cmi-book-awards-celebrate-the-power-of-not-knowing Independent Verification 2: www.pioneersofdigital.com/about-book/about-kogan-page</ Verification 3: www.pioneersofdigital.com/about-book/about-kogan-page</ Verification 4: web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/faculties/alss/public/ma_publishing_prep_reading_list_2014_15.pdf - I could go on.....and on.... user:MSnicki : They are one of the world's largest professional publishers - indisputable. This page really should not even have been considered for deletion. Not a good use of people's precious time. Momononu (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)User:Momononu]][reply]

  • Delete No third-party sources. The references here show that this is indeed a publisher that publishes books, some that even win awards. The award, however, was given to the book, not to the publisher. Other refs are directory listings and some PR materials. I don't doubt that this is a reputable publishing house, but better sources will need to be found, and I didn't find any. LaMona (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep New sources added bring this up to notability, IMO. The article, however, is still stubb-ish. The sources should provide more content than is shown here. Also, non-RS should be removed. I may do some editing. LaMona (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - thanks for the comments. I am editing to upgrade refs. Singo66 (talk)singo66Singo66 (talk)

Msnicki : page edited and these reliable independent secondary sources references now included:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/15/pressandpublishing.business3 http://www.thebookseller.com/news/kogan-page-launches-india-arm http://www.thebookseller.com/news/us-drives-kogan-page-growth http://www.thebookseller.com/news/kingsley-faber-and-kogan-win-indie-awards

Plus a couple of others. Singo66 (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)singo66Singo66 (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article appears to qualify but the rest are just routine coverage of their press releases and, per WP:CORPDEPTH, unhelpful in establishing notability. If you can find a second good article, I will change to keep. Msnicki (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Msnicki : possibly agree re two Bookseller links - this however is independent and The Bookseller is the key industry title - excellent rep for fact checking and independence: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/kingsley-faber-and-kogan-win-indie-awards

These have been ref'd in the page. Change to keep? Singo66 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)singo66Singo66 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


LaMona thank you for your last contribution.  :-)) Singo66 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)singo66Singo66 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get some independent views JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I didn't have too much luck finding in-depth sources on this. The best one I came across was the article from the guardian here, which makes the claim that it is by far England's number one indie publisher of business books. However, not being more familiar with independent publishing, I don't know if that is a notable achievement or not. -Verdatum (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 11:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am here to assist with reliable references and suggested edits for this page. COI declared on my user page. I do not intent to edit the page directly but will post suggested edits/sources here in the talk. Editors wishing to help welcomed. Bayleyinlight (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Despite the numerous sockpuppet accounts trying to shove the article down Wikipedia's throat, I believe that it meets notability guidelines. The difficult part of this is that there are tons of passing mentions which a book publisher would receive during the course of its business. Articles on books and authors they publish fill pages of Google News so finding in-depth coverage is hard. I believe this [1] is in-depth and accompanied by the ton of mentions this would pass the threshold IMO. I found 1,200+ hits in HighBeam with an isolated search [2]. Final note - it needs to be taken down to the basics and any promotional tone removed. --TTTommy111 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although most coverage is passing mentions what exists does indicate importance, and even the information sourced from press releases is valid - although press releases are the source as far as I can tell they are not just reproduced indiscriminately and would provide the main source of information in some industries such as publishing or financial services unless there was some controversy involving a company. Incidentally I visited the library today and of the 2 books I looked in one was published by Kogan Page (HarperCollins published the other book). Peter James (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several authors with Wikipedia pages in their list of published authors, which should be enough to establish notability by that alone notability should be able to be established. I think the article is totally salvageable, if we add in the material from the Guardian article and reformat (especially getting rid of all of the bullet lists). --Prosperosity (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kogan_Page&oldid=1137462035"