284:
it would appear) to hammer home is that the publishers and the people who have written/researched the books are by-and-large the same people. HP is the umbrella for all their efforts. Would you rather five articles of just three or four pars about each book, or one which rather sensibly ties them all together?
283:
Surely "what it's about, it's history, what makes it notable, what contribution it has made" is its books? Seeing as the article already says the premise behind HP, who started it and works it has done, be it briefly, a lot of what you say is already covered. As I've been trying (rather unsuccesfully
265:
But these are just press reviews of the books themselves, where the publisher is incidental. If the books had been published by a different company such as SportsBooks, then in all likelihood they would have been of the same quality - if there is any citable evidence to the contrary I have yet to see
347:
In this case the publisher is a specialised group, publishing a series of what appear to be fairly notable books around a common theme--one that many people think important. they describe themselves as a publishing collective, not a publisher. I think this is one of the exceptional cases where the
226:
I omitted the sentence that was a list, the vast majority if which is irrelevant to this debate. I think for athletics we can safely read sport. The references indicate that the efforts of
Hagiology (who both write and publish the books) have been commended in national media for their work, most
149:
notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... Large organisations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be
117:
Non-notable minor sports publishing company that has (by my count) published only six books in the space of a decade. Article reads little more than a catalogue advertising their published books than any kind of information on what makes them so notable or important. Fails to meet
331:. The references given refer to books issued by the publisher rather than the publisher itself. Some of them do not mention Hagiology Publishing at all, and for those that do the mention is incidental. I do not think these incidental mentions constitute
152:
It is notable to people in
Southampton. The authors and publisher are one-and-the-same, and all references (including ones from national newspapers) refer to them and their works - which by definition of being referred to - have attracted notice.
248:
Of course, it is a must-have for
Southampton fans, but it is also a significant work of football reference in its own right… IN THAT NUMBER sets the yardstick by which every other club history will now be
367:- I have been away for a few days so am coming rather late to this discussion. As the originator of the article, I have a natural tendency to want to keep it, but must confess to wavering esp. in view of
207:- something which has not been demonstrated in the case of this article. I am not denying that all small organisations are non-notable, my point is that this particular small organisation isn't notable.
348:
publisher is notable. The guidelines are called guidelines because they are only guides, and are intended to be flexible--in order to cover just such situations as this. We do the interpreting.
166:
The term notable on wikipedia has a much more narrow definition then you are applying. Please see our guidelines for how to determine if something passes our notability tests or not. ---
255:
That to me suggests that their efforts are certainly notable. Their work have surpassed being notable to
Southampton fans, but of being of interest to the wider footballing community.
110:
231:. Ignoring the fact that these publications are well known by Southampton fans, plaudits from national media surely justify notability. See for yourself (taken from references):
270:
is the subject of detailed discussion - what it's about, it's history, what makes it notable, what contribution it has made. All we have to go on at the moment is inference.
205:
Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
83:
78:
87:
375:'s comments and consider that the subject matter is sufficiently notable and the external references do provide sufficient independent sources.
70:
266:
it. None of the above mention the company by name and in the article currently, there is not a single citation of a secondary source where
150:
notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations.
122:
by not being covered in depth by secondary sources - even the references in the article only mention the publisher's name in passing.
17:
299:
176:
394:
36:
379:
359:
339:
323:
306:
288:
274:
259:
211:
198:
185:
157:
139:
126:
52:
393:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
74:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
376:
66:
58:
236:
A must for
Southampton fans, obviously, but worthy of consideration by any serious football historian
172:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
191:
119:
180:
320:
49:
336:
316:
285:
256:
195:
154:
355:
167:
104:
368:
303:
271:
208:
136:
123:
372:
350:
319:
has shown the "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics..." --
387:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
371:'s comments. On reflection, however, I am swayed more by
100:
96:
92:
242:
the most lavish and capacious club history imaginable.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
397:). No further edits should be made to this page.
302:'s list of football (soccer) related deletions.
203:... and omitted a sentence while you did so:
8:
238:(Tom Dart and Richard Whitehead, The Times).
298:This discussion has been included in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
333:multiple, non-trivial coverage
244:(Frank Keating, The Guardian).
190:I took that quote direct from
1:
268:the publishing company itself
251:(John May, BBC Sport Online).
380:08:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
360:20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
340:08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
324:06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
307:19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
289:11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
275:11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
260:10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
212:09:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
199:06:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
186:00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
158:22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
140:20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
127:20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
53:10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
414:
390:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
300:WikiProject Football
67:Hagiology Publishing
59:Hagiology Publishing
377:Daemonic Kangaroo
309:
184:
405:
392:
297:
224:(Removed indent)
170:
108:
90:
44:The result was
34:
413:
412:
408:
407:
406:
404:
403:
402:
401:
395:deletion review
388:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
411:
409:
400:
399:
383:
382:
362:
342:
326:
310:
294:
293:
292:
291:
278:
277:
253:
252:
245:
239:
229:In That Number
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
161:
160:
142:
135:as nominator.
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
410:
398:
396:
391:
385:
384:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
361:
357:
353:
352:
346:
343:
341:
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
322:
318:
314:
311:
308:
305:
301:
296:
295:
290:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
250:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
233:
232:
230:
225:
213:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
156:
151:
146:
143:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
121:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
389:
386:
364:
349:
344:
332:
328:
312:
267:
254:
247:
241:
235:
228:
223:
222:
204:
148:
144:
132:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
321:Brewcrewer
50:Eluchil404
337:Oldelpaso
227:notably
147:Because
111:View log
192:WP:CORP
120:WP:CORP
84:protect
79:history
369:Qwghlm
329:Delete
304:Qwghlm
272:Qwghlm
249:judged
209:Qwghlm
137:Qwghlm
133:Delete
124:Qwghlm
88:delete
317:Dan K
286:Dan K
257:Dan K
196:Dan K
155:Dan K
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
365:Keep
356:talk
345:Keep
313:Keep
145:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:Keep
373:DGG
351:DGG
181:WRE
168:J.S
109:– (
48:.
358:)
335:.
315:.
194:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
354:(
183:)
179:/
177:C
175:/
173:T
171:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.