The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Score Publishing

Score Publishing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are own refs. Very new company - too soon to have an article here.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   22:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• The company is fairly new, but the iBooks Author Certification Program (www.ibooksauthor.guru) has gained enough notoriety to warrant at least a brief explanation of the company on Wikipedia. The description is factual, concise, and purposefully devoid of superlatives or other advertising-type language. I would appreciate some guidance if this is somehow not up to Wikipedia standards - I believe it adds value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWalker101 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - clearly WP:TOOSOON. Work on generating actual third-party independent coverage of the company and its products rather than trying to generate a Wikipedia article and hoping that others take notice. Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. Companies are unlikely to inherit notability from their notable products. That said, you would first need to establish that the iBooks Author Certification Program is a notable product in the first place. That would need a lot more than a couple of references from the company's own site. Again, we need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: NOT NOTABLE: this certainly seems to be much TOOSOON for this new company. Obviously we have a good faith attempt here but without any independent citations, and a search failed to bring up anything significant after excluding confounding signals. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 03:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

LOL. Score Publishing's in good company on the Tennessee AfD page - every single one of those other pages are valid and should be kept on Wikipedia, and yet, it appears like none of them will. If this company page is a problem for Wikipedia, then I will delete it this week and end the discussion, which shouldn't be allowed to drag out. What a huge, bizarre waste of time. SWalker101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.202.92 ( talk) 04:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not a laughing matter; Wikipedia relies on verifiable information, and rightly insists that topics can be proven to be notable. We therefore need to check that articles meet these criteria. Very new companies are bound to find this difficult until they have been noticed by the world's media, which takes a little time. Clearly, too, Wikipedia must not allow itself to be used as a publicity engine. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

That comment is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with facts being verifiable. It instead has to do with some arbitrary standard of notoriety and whether a company has had a sufficient amount of press or third-party attention paid to it. I don't agree with the standard and I think it is completely bogus. You guys are doing what you think is right, which is fine, but like I said earlier, we're in good company with the other "questionable" Wikipedia pages listed on the Tennessee AfD discussion. I will check back here later in the week and delete the page if there isn't a clearly communicated acceptance to it remaining...nobody needs that. The page can just get re-posted again later, or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.202.92 ( talk) 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Please read Verifiability and General notability guideline. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have now read both of those links in their entirety. There's no question this article is all verifiable - this centers around "general notability." I would make the argument that the Advisory Board, consisting of a global selection of the world's foremost iBooks Author experts, constitutes "reliable sources" needed for a stand-alone article. ("Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.") Please see http://www.iBooksAuthor.guru/board.

• Delete per the nomination. The IP address 68.34.202.92 ( talk · contribs) and certain registered accounts are using Wikipedia as a platform for self promotion. Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Stop calling "text I don't think should be on Wikipedia" the same as "self promotion." No one is self-promoting anything as far as we're concerned and failure to allow this information on this company which is producing third-party Apple certification programs would be omitting valuable, verifiable, valid information backed by the Wikipedia-validated "reliable sources" of the group's global Advisory Board (www.iBooksAuthor.guru/board). There is no longer any question about this now that we know the Advisory Board is a permissible third-party source per Wikipedia's own guidelines. As always, if there's a better way to phrase what has been written about the company or its programs within the context of Wikipedia acceptable use, those revisions should be discussed...not whether the content should be deleted, which it clearly shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.202.92 ( talk) 21:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

First, no need to !vote twice. Second, there is no consensus that the Advisory Board is a reliable source. You proposed it be considered as much and then unilaterally decided it was a comment later. An internal Advisory Board could not possibly be considered an independent secondary source for a product its company promotes, just as the company itself isn't an independent reliable source for information about its own product. What we need is coverage in independent reliable sources - that would typically be books, magazines, newspapers, academic publications and the like, published by people with no connection to the company or its products. You need to spend time trying to find those rather than continue to argue that which is completely at odds with Wikipedia policy. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It's strange watching this unfold. I simply read the Wikipedia guidelines and realized the Advisory Board is truly the "reliable source(s)" required to support a standalone article, by Wikipedia's own guidelines. I did not "decide" this, but you're right, this realization did happen after the initial post where I floated this idea upon first thinking of it.

From the Wikipedia guidelines:

Definition of a source The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

The implication by Stalwart above is that an Advisory Board is "internal," which is absurd, inherently false, and a bizarre type of circular argument made by someone with an axe to grind. An Advisory Board by definition is an external body that sits outside a company's operation and adds value through objectivity.

By Wikipedia's written guidelines above, each of these Advisory Board members is a "source." It could be debated whether these specific individuals are "reliable," but somehow, that's not what you're arguing. You're instead arguing that the Advisory Board is not a source, which seems in direct contradiction to the link you yourself just posted which contains Wikipedia's outlined specifications on what a source truly is.

You're also not arguing that the Advisory Board might be paid, and therefore, in that way, are biased or somehow not reliable. This isn't the case with these individuals. But you didn't make this argument in the first place.

These individuals are established as the best, foremost experts in iBooks Author IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. No argument has been made here (yet) that that is not the case. Their credentials are indeed verifiable, just like all facts posted about Score Publishing on this page in question.

Each one represents the equivalent of a mountain of objective press, making the case that what this company is doing is worth making available online - not in an advertising or blustery, self-promotional sense, but strictly factual and concise.

No one's trying to circumvent Wikipedia policy or protocol here. Hopefully the time taken to have this earnest debate will be recognized, and some sort of compromise can be reached so we can all move on, get that notice off the top of the company page, and reduce the risk we'll have to have this same, exact discussion at some subsequent point in the future. Thanks.

• That wasn't at all the point of my comment. It's external from the company structure but isn't anywhere near independent enough with regard to either the company or the product for it to be considered a reliable source by our standards. Even if it were (and you seemed to have missed this point also) we still require significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.