Talk:Obverse Books

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Low‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Notability in question[edit]

There is a claim that

a 2 sentence book review which only mentions the publisher's name in a table format along with the price of the book[1]
a 1 sentence mention in an article which says the the publisher is about the publish a book [2]
and some type of coverage in SFX, which appears to boil down to "The funny rip off title used by Obverse for one of their books is an example of the cultural impact of the original book." (Obverse's "Panda Book of Horror" vis a vis the classic "Pan Book of Horror" )

somehow satisfies "significant coverage about the subject of the article in a manner that discounts any acceptability of placing a notability tag on the article.

I tend to disagree and see the source material as a poster child for "trivial mention" and the lack of significant coverage about the subject of the article is justification for the Notability tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a particularly neutral way to portray the sources presented. The first is a list of the best children's books of the year; the second is an article about the revival of a literary format, which uses the publisher's work as the primary example. (I don't know exactly what the SFX mention amounts to, as it appears not to be available in their online edition.)

Frankly, even though "notability is not inherited", I think that having published the work of authors such as Michael Moorcock and Paul Magrs is sufficient to indicate that the publisher is notable. But if you disagree, perhaps this will change your mind. I'll add it to the article shortly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article could use some more sources to improve it, and possibly be re-written in a more concise manner. However on balance I think there are sufficient independent sources referring to the company's output to justify the notability of this enterprise. Rankersbo (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome you to be specific about what you consider to be significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with the publisher about the company, on the book programme of the largest commercial radio station in the UK, doesn't suffice by you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is one source of significant content. The general notability guidelines state significant coverage in reliable sourceS - are there additional sources that have significant content about the subject? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this from Starburst... I'm sure that there is more, if I (or others) have the time to find it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Obverse Books have been in touch to announce ..." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have the same objection to this, a feature which has about 8 paragraphs on Obverse? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one is pretty much an unbroken direct quote from Stuart Douglas, but at least now someone could at least pretend to have a legitimate claim that WP:42 has been met. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you're dropping your claim that the page should be tagged for notability? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will no longer add the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References to Sexton Blake Licensing[edit]

Not all notable, but some of the references online to the acquisition of the Sexton Blake license.

Book Brunch: http://www.bookbrunch.co.uk/bbrunch/pid/article/sexton_blake_returns_with_obverse The Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/sexton-blake-back-in-print-1-2936166 Mark Hodder: http://markhodder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/sexton-blake-update.html Sexton Blake Blog: http://thesextonblakeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/obverse-books-acquires-license-to.html SF Signal: http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2013/05/sffh-link-post-for-2013-05-17/ Starburst: http://www.starburstmagazine.com/book-news/5374-book-news