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. Eluchil404 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiology Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable minor sports publishing company that has (by my count) published only six books in the space of a decade. Article reads little more than a catalogue advertising their published books than any kind of information on what makes them so notable or important. Fails to meet WP:CORP by not being covered in depth by secondary sources - even the references in the article only mention the publisher's name in passing. Qwghlm 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... Large organisations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations. It is notable to people in Southampton. The authors and publisher are one-and-the-same, and all references (including ones from national newspapers) refer to them and their works - which by definition of being referred to - have attracted notice. Dan K 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term notable on wikipedia has a much more narrow definition then you are applying. Please see our guidelines for how to determine if something passes our notability tests or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took that quote direct from WP:CORP. Dan K 06:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and omitted a sentence while you did so: Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. - something which has not been demonstrated in the case of this article. I am not denying that all small organisations are non-notable, my point is that this particular small organisation isn't notable. Qwghlm 09:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed indent) I omitted the sentence that was a list, the vast majority if which is irrelevant to this debate. I think for athletics we can safely read sport. The references indicate that the efforts of Hagiology (who both write and publish the books) have been commended in national media for their work, most notably In That Number. Ignoring the fact that these publications are well known by Southampton fans, plaudits from national media surely justify notability. See for yourself (taken from references):

• A must for Southampton fans, obviously, but worthy of consideration by any serious football historian (Tom Dart and Richard Whitehead, The Times).
• the most lavish and capacious club history imaginable. (Frank Keating, The Guardian).
• Of course, it is a must-have for Southampton fans, but it is also a significant work of football reference in its own right… IN THAT NUMBER sets the yardstick by which every other club history will now be judged (John May, BBC Sport Online).

That to me suggests that their efforts are certainly notable. Their work have surpassed being notable to Southampton fans, but of being of interest to the wider footballing community. Dan K 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are just press reviews of the books themselves, where the publisher is incidental. If the books had been published by a different company such as SportsBooks, then in all likelihood they would have been of the same quality - if there is any citable evidence to the contrary I have yet to see it. None of the above mention the company by name and in the article currently, there is not a single citation of a secondary source where the publishing company itself is the subject of detailed discussion - what it's about, it's history, what makes it notable, what contribution it has made. All we have to go on at the moment is inference. Qwghlm 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "what it's about, it's history, what makes it notable, what contribution it has made" is its books? Seeing as the article already says the premise behind HP, who started it and works it has done, be it briefly, a lot of what you say is already covered. As I've been trying (rather unsuccesfully it would appear) to hammer home is that the publishers and the people who have written/researched the books are by-and-large the same people. HP is the umbrella for all their efforts. Would you rather five articles of just three or four pars about each book, or one which rather sensibly ties them all together? Dan K 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dan K has shown the "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics..." --Brewcrewer 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references given refer to books issued by the publisher rather than the publisher itself. Some of them do not mention Hagiology Publishing at all, and for those that do the mention is incidental. I do not think these incidental mentions constitute multiple, non-trivial coverage. Oldelpaso 08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In this case the publisher is a specialised group, publishing a series of what appear to be fairly notable books around a common theme--one that many people think important. they describe themselves as a publishing collective, not a publisher. I think this is one of the exceptional cases where the publisher is notable. The guidelines are called guidelines because they are only guides, and are intended to be flexible--in order to cover just such situations as this. We do the interpreting. DGG (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have been away for a few days so am coming rather late to this discussion. As the originator of the article, I have a natural tendency to want to keep it, but must confess to wavering esp. in view of Qwghlm's comments. On reflection, however, I am swayed more by DGG's comments and consider that the subject matter is sufficiently notable and the external references do provide sufficient independent sources. Daemonic Kangaroo 08:21, 28 October 2007 (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.