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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metapress[edit]

Metapress (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)

Non-notable publisher. Most of the coverage appears to be press releases about their being spun out, taken over, etc. No evidence of the required in depth coverage. See also recent similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for writing, however, I'd like to point to the following article. This linked article is from UCLA, explicitly writing that Metapress is an established journal hosting their content under their resources section. All referenced and notable mentions on the original page have references, although I understand and agree that several additional references would be appropriate for addition. I would appreciate your review of this link, and many other comparable references to be considered prior to the repeated attempts at deletion. Thank you, and I am looking forward to your reply. Here is the link: http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/aascpress/aj.aspx Mark54ems (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a notable publisher, but you didn't make that clear at all -- add more references. Paperpro (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite. The article is somewhat unclear. The version of Metapress that was notable was the earlier system, which was not a journal or a reprinter, but a publication platform for publishing journals. It was used by a variety of publisjhers, many of them highly reputable. The best source for its nature is section 3 of [1], a blog, but a blog by a well-known expert in scholarly publishing. I consider it a RS. All references before 2014 refer to this platform,which is currently called Literatum. [2] Ditto for the UCLA reference cited above.

The present system has kept the name, but has essentially no content; as its home page says "We are currently in the process of redeveloping our entire site, so you unfortunately won’t find many published pages at this time." I cannot tell if it retains any connection with Ebsco, but I need to do some inquiries DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be right about all this, but neither of the sources you provide have in depth coverage of a thing called 'Metapress'. Without in depth coverage of a thing called Metapress, there can be no article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with rewriting, DGG, and also understand the need for additional references as stated by Paperpro. I agree that in-depth coverage is currently absent from the references, Stuartyeates, but there are numerous references that I just need time to add. I believe the second deletion attempt by Stuartyeates is inaccurate, although rewriting and adding references is certainly valid. I will begin to add references, but please review the following links in the meantime: Please see this article by Google Scholar, section "Journal Publishers", explicitly referencing Metapress: https://web.archive.org/web/20160328013659/https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html. Please see this in-depth article on UKSG, regarding purpose and overview of Metapress: http://serials.uksg.org/articles/abstract/10.1629/17287/ with PDF download to view. Please review this link hosted on Princeton, with references of hosting on Metapress: https://www.princeton.edu/~verdu/lossless.data.pdf. Please see this page on Worldcat, http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2005085660/. There are many others, which I will begin to compile shortly, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark54ems (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The google mention is a mention and not the required in depth coverage. http://serials.uksg.org/articles/abstract/10.1629/17287/ is by an EBSCO employee and thus not independent. https://www.princeton.edu/~verdu/lossless.data.pdf appears to neither be on-topic nor independent (I confess I may have missed the point there). http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2005085660/ is a database entry of the type explicitly prohibited by note 5 of the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for removal of the "articles for deletion" tag: I have updated the Metapress page with additional references, including in-depth coverage and additional clarification of the history. There are many more articles possible to reference, but I believe this is currently suitable to be removed from the "articles for deletion" category. Please review, Stuartyeates, DGG, and Paperpro. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark54ems (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per DGG. Notability isn't temporary, so current growing pains doesn't affect that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current version. Agree with DGG's statements, echoed by Dennis Brown. Rewritten version and updated references are more robust. Looking at the references, I don't see how this is even still a two-sided discussion of notability and in-depth coverage. Paperpro (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this edition surpasses previous objections of in depth coverage, and the questionability of being a notable publisher. TheSlingshotRun (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2016 (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.