Talk:Zed Books

Proposed deletion

I think the proposer's rationale fails. Google Scholar search for "Zed Books" finds 50,000 references to books published by this publisher. Clearly someone thinks these books are worth reading and discussing. Wikipedia search for "Zed books" or "Zed press" finds 500 articles that reference works published by Zed. So I conclude that this publisher unquestionably exists and is not a fringe or vanity press. OpenLibrary search [1][2] finds that they have published over 3,000 books. So I conclude that they are a significant publisher.

The question I now ask is whether this publisher satisfies WP:GNG. I think it is extremely likely that it does. The article and the publisher's web site claim that it has been established for more than thirty years. The searches above indicate that it is well-known. It seems very likely that information about the subject exists in multiple independent sources.

Even if the subject were to fail WP:GNG, it might well satisfy the verifiability and notability guidelines. This is evidently a publisher of some importance.

—Dominus (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, publisher looks notable enough and the article creator has worked tirelessly on the article, shame it all had to be removed. SpigotMap 14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Importance is established by coverage in reliable independent sources. This article cites no sources other than the company's own website. Please fix that. The article creator is clearly working for the company - of course he works tirelessly on the article, it was an advertisement. That's been fixed but WP:NPOV content needs to be added in its place. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate response to an article that reads like an advertisement is to rewrite it. The appropriate response to an article that does not cite sources is to cite some. WP:SOFIXIT. —Dominus (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. {{sofixit}} Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zed Press is certainly notable; its published authors include Joel Kovel, Nawal El Saadawi, Samir Amin, Vandana Shiva, Nadje Sadig Al-Ali, Uri Davis, James Petras, Walden Bello and many more significant academics. I own several of Zed books, as will any editor with an interest in third world issues. I am surprised that there was no article until last July, and astonished that there could be a suggestion to delete. RolandR (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked! Shocked I say! that anyone would want to delete an article on a company that has been around since 1977 but has somehow escaped any news stories about it Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this. —Dominus (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google news search finds 18 references to Zed Books. That may not seem many; but there are only 41 for Pluto Press, and even Penguin Books has only 122. Clearly publishing houses are not a frequent topic for news items, and the lack of news articles says nothing about the notability of such companies. RolandR (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that notability can be established for a publisher that has published hundreds of books, but the problem is because it specialises in academic texts then it may not get a lot of mainstream attention. We can at least give it some time in that respect. The main problem was the promotional nature of the article, listing its entire inventory and the editorial review board. If people want this information they can go to the publisher's website, and the article should be limited to its operational infrastructure, its focus and of course anything else notable about it, along the lines of Macmillan Publishers. Editorial members and publications that are notable through third party reliable sources perhaps can be included. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)