Talk:Baltzer Science Publishers

Lauren's work

Here's the parts of Lauren's recent work that might be salvageable:

"Baltzer Science Publishers BV was first started in 1980 under the name J.C. Baltzer AG. The owners of J.C. Baltzer AG sold the company in 1994. In 1994 its new owners renamed the company into Baltzer Science Publishers BV. This company was sold in may 2000 by its owners to Kluwer Academic Publishers. A few years later Kluwer Academic Publishers was sold by Kluwer NV to private investors who merged this company into Springer Verlag."

It is possible that there could be a completely separate article on the new company, containing this information:

In 2009 one of the previous owners of Baltzer Science Publishers started a new company under the same name Baltzer Science Publishers. This new company has one of the previous owners as its sole owner and publishes also scientific and professional journals only.

IMO the rest of it (for example, whether Archive.org shows the old website) is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

List of journals

I removed the list of journals. These journals are currently published by a different publisher (Springer) and not this one. Hence, this list does not belong here without references. This section appears to be off topic. Also, Notability is not inhertied. And this list is overdoing it anyway. WP is not an indiscriminate collector of information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ---- Steve Quinn (talk} 06:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Old journal, new journal

• I copied the discussion that is occuring at User talk:David Eppstein pertaining to recent edits for this article. It is as follows: Steve Quinn (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

David, When i look up " notability" on Wikipedia, it says the following:

Notability of a subject determines which articles will be included or not at Wikipedia.

Notability, according to Wikipedia itself, thus does not refer to the content of particular parts of a wikipedia entry. So one can argue that BSP was never notable, and thus should not be on Wikipedia. However, given that there is an article on Baltzer Science Publishers, the notability argument in no way implies that particular parts of the artixle should be removed, for example because the subject of the article is no longer notable. Hence, the argument that the new BSP is not notable does not justify youbor other authors having incorrect information in the article, or remove information that applies to a period after which you or other people no longer consider BSP notable. In fact, by applying a symmetric argument, any company that is defunct is non- notable. Hence any article about defunct businesses could be removed.

Clearly, that does not conform to Wikipedia's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperroszbach (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are two different companies named Baltzer Science Publishers, one defunct and sold, the other newly founded, then they must be in separate articles according to WP:NOTDICT. However, each article must separately meet WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like notability as an argument is not brought forward anymore. To me, an acceptable solution would be to rename the current article "the fomer BSP". i can then write the I wrote before in a new article "BSP". conflict of interest is not an issue here. I find the persistent re- instatement of incorrect information by you particularly disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperroszbach (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Sorry for not signing, I thought this occurred automatically. Kasperroszbach (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look. Your persistent single-issue spamming is likely to get you blocked. If you want to push your publisher, find some way outside Wikipedia to get press for it. Once people start writing articles about it elsewhere, there will be a much better argument for having an article here. Then, and only then, we can start worrying about how to name articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The editing behavior of User:Kasperroszbach could be construed as unacceptable according to Wikipedia standards. This editor appears to be engaged in a slow motion edit war with two or three other editors. If my edit is revereted then that would be three or four. Edit warring is not helpful and users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked WP:EW. Furthermore, attempting to add content related to the new unrelated company appears to be WP:SYN. Any content pertaining to the new company is off topic here. The content along with the external link is not relvant to this article. It does appear to be simply SPAM in this context.

I have to agree with David Eppstein that this appears to be a WP:NPOV attempt to promote a company that seems to be just barely established WP:SOAP. I also agree that if no significant coverage is available then the new company does not merit inclusion (its own stand alone article) on Wikipedia. WP:ORG

Finally, these seemingly disruptive edits have been occurig against consensus. I think that User:Kasperroszbach should discuss their edits here before attempting to place them in the article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)