Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooks Source

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 redirect to Cooks Source infringement controversy. Any relevant content not already in the target article can be merged there from the history. Sandstein 08:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooks Source

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

This former redirect is now a content fork of Cooks Source infringement controversy. All sourcing and information already exists in original article. Propose reinstating this as a redirect. Jokestress (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Controversy is notable; magazine is not. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—firstly, Secas far as I can tell, WP:ONEEVENT does not apply to companies. This magazine, its practices, its market, its themes and its editor have had much coverage in the news recently, and this surely confers notability. Secondly, if the nominator is in fact seeking a redirect then this is not the venue and this discussion should be closed. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 06:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Company/magazine has no notability beyond the incident, which is already covered in an article of its own. Although WP:ONEEVENT does not seem to me to explicitly apply to companies, there is no reason we can't use the same principle in considering whether a company is truly notable. The magazine seems to have received only trivial coverage, incidental to the coverage of the plagiarism controversy. cmadler (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There is nothing in the article that in any way asserts notability except the plagiarism controversy, which is already well covered elsewhere. Two of the three references deal with the controversy, the third is not a reliable source (being the magazine's own website). Jimmy Pitt talk 11:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company's own website is obviously a reliable source. It may not be a neutral, independent, impartial or third-party source, but nevertheless... ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company's website, because it is not independent, does not do anything toward establishing notability. cmadler (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it did. I merely disputed Jimmy's (ridiculous) claim that the website is not a reliable source. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having read the article on the controversy, I followed the link to the Cook's Source page in the hope of finding further background info on the publication, such as who the publisher is. The publication IS notable, due to the controversy, and there'll be a lot of people wanting further background information on it, again, because of the controversy. To complain that the publication isn't "truly" notable, or that it's "only" notable for the controversy and therefore doesn't count, is weaselly and irrelevant. The publication is at the centre of on one of the biggest controversies about copyright, internet activism and law. It's going to be in the "media studies" textbooks, if it isn't already. With that in mind, readers need to be able to find information on this magazine in order to arrive at a sensible evaluation of the issues raised by the controversy. Is the publication part of a larger company? Who's the publisher, with legal liability for any copyright infringements? Is this part of a big media conglomerate, or is it run from someone's back room? Who was reponsible for hiring the offending editor? Is the editor also the owner/publisher? It's difficult to have an informed opinion on the "Cook's Source Controversy" without knowing a bit more about Cook's Source, and given the apparent paucity of outside sources on the magazine, if we can't find the information on Wikipedia, where else are we supposed to look?
I agree that the magazine would almost certainly fail the notability criteria if it wasn't for this event, but in //this// universe, the event happened. Putting the publisher info (etc.) onto the "controversy" page would feel awkward, IMO it's more sensible to lodge the magazine's background details on a page that's actually about the magazine (qualified by an intro that points out that the magazine only rose to notability because of the controversial event). ErkDemon (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the comment above, I added additional information about the magazine's history, scope, and size at Cooks Source infringement controversy#Background. The only reason we know any of these things is because of the controversy. The magazine had been mentioned once in reliable sources available online in the last 13 years of operation. This is a very tiny magazine, more like an advertising flyer or insert in some ways. Jokestress (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason we know any of these things is because of the controversy. Please cite any policy or guideline which states that if facts are only published in a reliable source because of one particular event, they are off-limits to articles on subjects other than that event. Because that appears to be what you are implying? ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:TreasuryTag, as previously discussed here, the magazine is not notable, but the controversy is. In that discusssion, you wrote: "I'm concerned that by redirecting this company's name to one highly negative (albeit justified!) facet of their identity and history might be stretching WP:NPOV a little too far?" What you describe, and the unilateral action you took in changing this redirect into an article over the objection of several editors, constitute a POV fork. In fact, copying and pasting text and sourcing from the controversy article into this article (which you just did here) is a textbook example of a redundant content fork. Those are the most relevant guidelines, with the underlying policy being WP:NPOV. Jokestress (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fine; I'm a POV warrior. Report me, whatever. But I think you may have a hard time convincing anyone that starting an article on a magazine which was at the centre of a major controversy is non-neutral: on the contrary, the article gives balanced coverage to the controversy.
Now please will you explain on which policy or guideline you based your comment, "The only reason we know any of these things is because of the controversy." Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 23:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My comment you quote is not based on policy; it is based on fact. This magazine would not have merited an article on November 1, 2010. It does not merit one today, either. The magazine is still not notable. The controversy, however, is very notable. This is a pretty standard practice here. Mohammed al-Madadi is not notable, but the United Airlines Flight 663 incident he caused is. We don't need separate articles on Cooks Source, Judith Griggs, Monica Gaudio, or other involved parties because they are not notable outside the controversy. I don't feel you are a POV warrior; I simply believe you are mistaken regarding policy. Jokestress (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment you quote is not based on policy – damn right. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the controversy article. Seriously, the company is not notable outside the controversy and there is no way anyone will ever want to know anything about the company for reasons unrelated to the controversy. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Any content in this article not in the infringement page can simply be added to that page. 76.99.122.143 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see anything beyond normal company reporting (history, scope, activities), none of which are third-party-noted except in relation to the plagiarism controversy. An obituary might contain an independently-sourced and -written full life story of a person, but it alone is little more than that the person existed and did things, not direct notability, and WP:NOTDIR. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The magazine isn't notable, the controversy is. Nothing to merge here.--RadioFan (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2010 (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.