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 as failing to have the reliable sources which give "significant coverage...independent of the subject" necessary to meet WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulgur Limited[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable publisher, doesn't meet notability requirements for organizations and companies. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to counsel caution and prudence here. I am well aware of the Wiki policy regarding notability, and of the good reasons for establishing notability through secondary sources. I can't help but observe however, that the requirement for secondary sources creates a bit of a problem in cases where the entity in question is a publisher. A publisher – any publisher – establishes notability in the world by publishing books. To phrase it as baldly as possible: the books produced by a given publisher are precisely what establishes that publisher's notability. And yet because of the requirement for secondary sources such indicators are precisely what end up being disallowed here. This is a publisher with an international reputation, that has been in business for ~20 years, and one that has produced approximately the same number of titles. These titles are discussed extensively online, by interested parties in different countries across the world. We should keep this in mind.

In any case, this is a notable publisher, which can be established as follows:

1. The publisher produces notable works. The notability of these works is established by their frequent mention in online media. Just do a search for a few of the titles this press has produced and ignore online media produced by the publisher itself while focusing on mention of its publications by third parties. While these are not secondary sources of the first order, they establish international public awareness, interest and discussion regarding the publisher and works bearing its imprimatur. For example:

http://beinart.org/art-news/2011/03/03/book-launch-for-orryelles-new-art-book-coagula/
http://plutonica.net/2008/01/21/new-book-by-austin-osman-spare/
http://www.society.kosmic-gnosis.org/atua.html

2. Several authors who produced works that have been published by this press are individually notable, most importantly Austin Osman Spare and Kenneth Grant. For more information on these authors see the existing Wikipedia articles. In the case of Spare Fulgur Ltd. is particularly important as this publisher has been tapped as an authority on this figure, maintains a digital archive of this unquestionably notable figure's work, and is the primary publisher today of his work. That said, this is not all that Fulgur does, and so simply putting a short mention of the press in Spare's article is not a felicitous solution.

3. The leading figure associated with the press, Robert Ansell, is himself a notable authority on things esoteric. He is regularly invited to discuss esoteric subjects in interviews and presentations. For example on Thursday, 4th Nov. 2004 an episode of the BBC program "The Culture Show" focused on a notable occult artist, and included an appearance by Robert Ansell, identified by name with "Fulgur Publishing" appearing prominently in the title over introducing his segment. Footage can be reviewed by interested editors here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjtK7vQdgEg

He is also recognized as a notable authority on things esoteric in online publications. For example:

http://equinoxfestival.org/speakers.html
http://plutonica.net/2010/11/14/sparian-delights/
http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/press/reviews/

The existing article already includes a citation indicating Ansell was quoted in an issue of The Fortean Times this year. He has also written for publications which he himself did not publish. For example he wrote the introduction for Austin Osman Spare: Cockney Visionary, A Catalogue of Works in the Collection of the Southwark Council, Jerusalem Press, 2010. This was produced to coincide with the exhibition of Spare's work at the Cuming Museum, London. In connection with this exhibition an article in The Telegraph newspaper of Oct. 29th 2005 makes mention of Fulgur and one of its publications. While the argument can be made that here we're talking about Ansell in some cases instead of Fulgur I think it is safe to say that Ansell is at the center of Fulgur and contributes to its notability. It does not seem that an article on Ansell can be justified, while one regarding Fulgur is justified.

4. Works produced by this publisher are cited and acknowledged in academic works by publishers about whom no notability questions can be raised. This is precisely the basis of notability in the academic tradition of citation, which is what Wiki's guidelines are based upon – being as it is the central tradition of scholastic endeavor.

For example Stealing Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Modern Western Magic by Nevill Drury, Oxford University Press, cites Fulgur publications/media more than a dozen times. And Shamans/neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans by Robert J. Wallis, Routledge 2003 cites works by Fulgur and indeed explicitly thanks them in the acknowledgements for permission to use material.

I think this article should be kept. I also can't help but observe that nominating the article for deletion right at the peak of the holiday season puts any parties interested in preventing deletion at a distinct disadvantage, as many are busy with the holidays and therefore unable to get involved in defending the article, or else simply unaware that it has been nominated for deletion. --Picatrix (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you note are primarily blogs and other self-published sources, which aren't reliable and can't be used to establish notability. I challenge you to show a single book published by this publisher that meets WP:NBOOK that's not a reprint of a book previously published by another publisher. And it's not hard to show notability for a publisher, we have hundreds of articles about publishing companies which are actually notable. Yworo (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the owner of Fulgur is aware and after our notability requirements were explained to him said, "Well, maybe its best if you just delete the page then". Yworo (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Ansell is notable, ~~and I believe that he may very well meet our notability requirements~~, then start Robert Ansell, which can mention Fulgur until such time as it becomes independently notable. Also, consider starting articles on books first published by Fulgur that meet WP:NBOOK. If it should prove that both Ansell and several books are notable, then you will have established the validity of your argument, but right now it doesn't look valid as neither I nor Ansell could find even two sources to meet WP:GNG, and he tried to do so and would be more intimately aware of what's been published about the company than anyone. Yworo (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It will never be easy to demonstrate notability for specialist publishers of fine books in limited editions. Their reach is so small that it takes a century or two before enough people notice them, and generally they are happy with that (see Robert Ansell's comment linked by Yworo above). We still need to know about them, and Wikipedia should be a place where we can find them. Andrew Dalby 13:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a business directory. There are plenty of sites which are. Acting as a directory for non-notable businesses is not part of Wikipedia's function. This is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business doesn't have much to do with this: the relevant concerns are art, literature and the specialist fields in which the press publishes.

Is there a list of invalid arguments in deletion discussions? Andrew Dalby 08:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. Thanks. I don't see my argument there. I maintain my point. Andrew Dalby 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure your argument is there, your argument boils down to "it's valuable information" and "it's useful" to some unspecified population of people. We don't base inclusion on the "need to know" something, we base inclusion solely on notability, which hasn't yet been shown. We simply don't keep articles that don't meet at least our general notability guideline for any reason, so if you think it must be kept, provide sources that show notability. There is no other argument which is valid in a deletion discussion except when combined with a demonstration of notability as shown by substantial coverage in multiple independent third-party reliable sources. We are under no obligation to fulfill any "need to know", the Fulgur company website does that quite well, and as there are no other sources to use, the most we can really do is serve as a copy of the information on that website, which is just what the article now is, essentially an advert with no information about Fulgur that's not already present on the company website. Yworo (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge possibly to List of publishing companies of the United Kingdom. Statements such as "The apparent success of this business model has led to it being widely adopted within the esoteric genre, particularly since the arrival of e-commerce." are unsourced and so must be removed. Worldcat.org does not list any of Fulgur Press, Fulgur Limited or Fulgur Publishing. I found the lists in the article to be insignificant, really everything in the article I found to be insignificant, except that this press exists, and that this existence is of importance to the enduring record. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to vote twice, but I still say keep. This whole area is one that Wikipedia hasn't yet spread into, but it will. The sooner we start, the sooner we'll get somewhere. I see what Unscintillating means about "merge" but I wouldn't, in any case, agree with the precise suggestion of "List of publishing companies of the United Kingdom". All private presses (of which Fulgur Limited can surely count as one) would be utterly insignificant among publishing companies (OK, I know that's how it describes itself). That just isn't why they are notable. As I said above, it's their contribution to art and literature that matters, not their microscopic footprint in sales or marketing or world media. Anyway, I will now add Fulgur to the very incomplete list at private press (which I've only just discovered). I'll also add to that article a reference to the specialised journal in this field, The Private Library, which will no doubt do a long article on Fulgur Press some time in the next fifteen years or so. Happy New Year to all! Andrew Dalby 10:13, 26 December 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.