Talk:Solaris Books

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disputed speedy[edit]

This seems to be a pretty notable imprint of the Games Workshop publishing division, and the works they are putting out are by a number of notable authors, so I'd say it's a subject worthy of wikipedia. I'm sure a few press peices could be dug up as references. Artw 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger problem is that the article looks like it was cut and pasted from a press release. I'd say that meciless editing rather than deletion woulkd be the route to go to correct that, and that at any rate an afd would be more appropriate than a speedy delete. Artw 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've done quite a bit of work on Black Flame turning it around from an unpromising start (although it can always do with expanding) and this is another GW imprint and seems worthy of its own entry. It does need some work though. (Emperor 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's definitely a notable imprint. I'm sitting here with an advance review copy of one of their books. The problem is clearly that someone cut and pasted a press release into the article, that's grounds for seriously amending the article. The charge of non-notability is a complete non-sequitur Mr. Analytical 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest thing is to just remove the rather pointless marketspeak (there is no prerequisite to have a couple of hundred words in an entry when it is started and it works better as a trimmed down stub). I've also added in a number of the upcoming books which also show that the authors are all largely notable enough to merit their own entries here too. I think that should satisfy most of the concerns raised and it should form a reasonable kernel to build things up to a reasonable article. (Emperor 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Art has removed the tags - I think the big issue was the marketspeak but if there are other concerns then feel free to bring them up here and someone will try and address them. If anyone genuinely feels it isn't notable enough then they can do it properly and put it up for deletion. (Emperor 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strikes me as bad form to flag an entry for deletion as non-notable simply for using marketspeak. I'm pretty sure that the correct procedure would be to flag the use of language. The nn thing is increasingly becoming used as a catch all for people who, clearly ill informed about an area, take issue with an entry for some largely specious reason. Suggesting that this company aren't notable is just risible. Mr. Analytical 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a couple of other entries put up for deletion because of marketspeak when the solution is easy enough (I've just added my concern to Top Shelf Productions). If an entry gets started that would need to be started anyway then the opening content doesn't really matter as it can be changed around - the important thing is that it is started. Deleting it would have made it diffcult to start it again (you get caught in a speedy deletion cycle). Ah well. No harm done now and it has ensured the entry got fixed (even if it is a crude tool for the job). (Emperor 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solaris Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731073612/http://www.shirleyjacksonawards.org/sja_2009_winners.php to http://www.shirleyjacksonawards.org/sja_2009_winners.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]