Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and Be Damned

Publish and Be Damned

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources are cited to show that the topic is notable. In fact, no sources are cited that mention the topic at all. This may be the same topic previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and be damned, which was unanimously agreed to be deleted in 2005 and was deleted again in 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. After sifting through a few pages of results for "Publish and Be Damned" + "publishing fair" on Google, the only in-depth coverage I found was this and this, which isn't enough to pass GNG. I also found some blog coverage, but no other reliable sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to neutral based on the sources found by E.M.Gregory. Unfortunately, the databases I have available to me do not index The Guardian or Artforum, so I'm not able to evaluate whether these additional sources provide significant coverage or are just routine coverage (as BarrelProof seems to think). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the publishing fair is deemed non notable then this term should be redirected to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington just like Publish and be damned but if it is deemed notable then WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:2DABPRIMARY will do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources found by Lord Bolingbroke, a couple of articles that ran in The Guardian (added to page yesterday). Tehre were more news articles in teh archive searches I ran, keywords like book fair. This was clearly a thing, for a few years. And some solid sources found in a gBooks search: [1] Suggest moving page to Publish and Be Damned (publishing fair).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the identified sources, which apparently took some effort to dig up (by someone who thinks the article should be deleted), are just minor promotional material and routine announcements of what's happening around town. The only source linked in the article is identified as an "event notice" and is only 12 sentences long (and has an ungrammatical sentence). Clearly this was a pretty minor event. We should not have articles about every little fair that is held at the local ~~high school gymnasium~~ church crypt, which seems to be roughly what this article is. This article is doomed to perma-stub status and should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

permanent stub status is a common and unobjectionable feature of Wikipedia. Many bried articles are worth keeping. this one does need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I find it very objectionable. If something is so non-notable that even after looking for sources we can't find anything that really discusses the subject in detail, and if that situation looks like it is never going to change (e.g. because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct, so that no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication), then we should not maintain a perma-stub about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a vanity press, obscure fan site, or personal blogging site. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a good idea to look at the most recent updates before opining. And, when sources have been found, doing a fresh WP:BEFORE search can be enlightening. I speak as an editor who often changes my opinion after someone sources a page that my initial WP:BEFORE could not source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did review the latest changes before making that comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - we really should have a stand alone article on Wellington and his phrase.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an article on Wellington and it discusses his phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware. What I intended to suggest is that an article on the subsequent uses to which the phrase has been put would be worth having.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty written about this event. I did a simple article search in my library's article database for the event and its curators and found seven (7) references, e.g. Zappaterra, Y. (2006). Punk publishing. Design Week, 21(30), 36-36. I find the dismissive tone above "about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct" objectionable. Wikipedia is the ideal venue for such information. It is what many people come here for. Emphatic Keep. Gerntrash (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it was cited in this doctoral dissertation: Sullivan, Molly E. The Multivalent Platforms of Alternative Art Publications as Agents of Authentic Cultural Change, University of Southern California, 2010. Gerntrash (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY nice job of sourcing by User:Gerntrash. And a reminder that the fact that a book fair is now defunct is not an argument for deleting it, we have thousands or defunct things in Category:Former entities, thousands more in Category:Defunct media and other similar categories. Contrary to Nom's assertion that "because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct... no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication" people do continue to publish copiously about many small defunct events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]