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. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adept Press[edit]

Adept Press (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)

Promotional article by an IP editor on a for-profit corporation is sourced to a single reference, which is purely incidental in nature. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I don't see any coverage at all, much less significant coverage. Sources are also lacking and it seems this company may be appropriate to talk about in a section of a different article but not have its own. GoodCrossing (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to recommend it be merged into the article about the guy who created the company, but he doesn't seem to be notable either. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that the article on the founder doesn't meet WP:BIO as well. Perhaps this can also go into AfD? GoodCrossing (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• GoodCrossing - I would also agree the article on the founder is suitable for AfD. Chetsford (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Four pages in an RS published book is not "incidental" in nature. Citation in the second book (based on a research paper about the history of role-playing games) highlights the role of founder of Adept Press for the seminal role in developing indie role-playing games. Would seem to indicate notability. Guinness323 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guinness323 since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PRESERVE applies to content within an article, not the existence of the article itself. Our WP:SIGCOV standard is not crested. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) - PRESERVE does indeed apply to "content within an article", but to be preserved it has to go somewhere. The article on the founder would be the correct location for that content.

Also, there seem to be sour grapes in the nomination, since the terms "promotional" and "incidental" are used by the Nom even though neither term actually applies to this article. The nominator has also misapplied SIGCOV in the above comment, which is below the standard I expect from an Admin, even a relatively "green" one. Perhaps they could strive for more accurate presentation in future. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I can't see the paper sources coverage, but they are reliable (one I've researched before, the other at least looks quite reliable). The depth of coverage is less clear to me, but it sounds like at least one spans 4 pages. Seems likely to be enough. I'm unclear on how other are claiming the coverage isn't significant. Do those folks have access to these sources? If so, could one of you who say there isn't enough coverage explain what the coverage is (number of pages or paragraphs, topics covered) and explain your !vote a bit better? Thanks! @GoodCrossing: @BonkHindrance: @Chetsford: Hobit (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just read the "Designers & Dragons" reference (Adept is covered in the 00s book) and it certainly looked extremely promising. There is an entire chapter entitled "Adept Press: 2001-Present" which extends from page 131 to 151 - but in reality the book only discusses Edwards and various games in depth, there is no substantive coverage of the company. It is a case really of WP:NOTINHERITED - while Edwards and the games are probably notable, the company fails to meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad someone read it and reported back. Quick question: what would you be looking for in the coverage of the company other the coverage of its products? It sounds like the author thinks they are covering the relevant contributions of the company. But until I can (re)find a copy, I can't add much more. Thanks again! Hobit (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies if this is overly long - I wish there was a shorter way to explain this - maybe someone else can do a better job. There are a lot of "companies" that people assume are notable because, perhaps, the founders are famous or they have a really well-known product. For example, record labels may publish music from very notable musicians but that doesn't mean that the company (record label) is itself notable. We refer to that as "Inherited" notability, the same way that a celebrity's child might be "famous" but only because of the association with the parent. Or perhaps a famous artist has an exhibition in a gallery - same "inheritance" and doesn't mean the gallery is notable. Those are fairly clear-cut (mostly). But what about, say, a well known tycoon (pick any tech billionaire for example) starts a new company and there is some coverage due to the fame of the tycoon. For these references we need to carefully look at each reference. Many will be churnalism where articles regurgitate the initial Press Releases from the company about their famous founder/investor/etc. We search for in-depth information on the *company*. We look for Independent Content which is defined at WP:ORGIND as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That sentence is very important. So articles that rely entirely on information provided/supplied/produced by someone associated with the company is not Independent Content.
      So back to your question. For me, all the "achievements" of the company (in the book) are attributed to one named person, Edwards. Practically every sentence refers to Edwards, not to the company. So for me, the notability is Edwards. Also, if the products are notable then the products should have an article - doesn't mean that the company is notable for publishing them (same as record label companies, book publishers, etc). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually agree with HighKing's analysis here re: Notability. However, the resulting, policy-compliant outcome us then a Merge to the notable topic (Ron Edwards, the principal creative) and a Redirect to the company name, per PRESERVE and BEFORE C.4. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tend to be more conservative on BLPs and for someone who is only notable for a company, I'd rather they redirect to the company than the other way around. And folks often cite BIO1E as a reason for doing so. I'm willing to accept either way, but we clearly have coverage that meets WP:N on this person, and his company's, contributions to the field. We just need to get agrement on where to have the article and where to have the redirect. I'd say that's more of an RfC thing than an AfD thing, but we're here, so maybe this is the right place to finish that. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My 2c based on what I've read about both the company and the person is that the company fails notability criteria but the person, Edwards, likely meets the criteria for notability, so therefore it makes more sense to keep Edward's topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In looking for references, I came across several journal articles and books which mention or review products made by Adept Press (more than what is in the article currently), but I could find no coverage on the company itself. I have to concur with High King that notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this !vote has not taken into account the Merge and Redirect argument per PRESERVE. It is therefore essentially an anti-Keep argument and does not present any policy-relevant considerations against a Merge/Redirect close. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2020 (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.