Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of York Music Press

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 merge to University of York or a subsection, as deemed appropriate when a line is added. Viable AtD that solves to the nom and the delete concerns Star Mississippi 02:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of York Music Press[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has been tagged for notability since 2013. PROD tag placed by Spaully removed by Espresso Addict. Zero sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Search results show up Wikipedia mirrors. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my PROD: No reliable sources for notability, all found links are from their own webpage or very brief and do not establish notability. Improvement tags in place since 2013 without improvement. |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 20:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the prod on purely technical grounds, but as far as I understand it, a music press like this would meet inclusion criteria if supported by (reliable independent) reviews of the music it publishes, rather than the press as a company. These would need searching for specifically. The fact that they aren't currently present does not mean they don't exist, and the fact that there's a long list of blue-linked composers tends to suggest they do exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example is the founder David Blake, who has published much of his music with the press since 1994, as reviewed in depth in Tempo: [1]. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Got to go offline now, but also the same treatment for Anthony Gilbert [2]. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A press needs to pass our criteria for organizations. Reviews of works mention and cover the creator, not the press that publishes them, and cannot be used to show the press doing the publishing is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly not my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's an entire section on product reviews which says "Product, event, and restaurant reviews (i.e. where author describes personal opinions and experiences) must be handled with great care and diligence. Some types of reviews have a longer history and established traditions (e.g. restaurants, wine, books, movies), while other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel. Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement..."

My reading is that this states that book reviews (which I'd think print music falls under) are reliable and can count towards notability. If John Pack Lambert's reading were generally followed, one would have to delete almost all our content on small presses. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's generally a good idea to have something about publishers, since we cite sources that they publish, and we can help our readers by providing information about where those sources came from. Specialist publishers and presses can be devilishly hard to document, however. UYMP is affiliated with York's Department of Music, so we could reasonably redirect to University of York and add a sentence in some appropriate spot there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is ideal as there's no material about the (possibly notable, from my searches) music department. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In this case, there's an obvious merge.I don't think this is adequately covered by the present guidelines, so there's no point in trying to decide by them It would basicaly be an exception to NOT DIRECTORY, and I can see good reaason to make that exception. The question fo whether we should in general have content of this sort from small or specialist publishers would need further discussion., leading ultimately to an AfC. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with DGG above, there's an obvious Merge target as per WP:ATD. On its own the company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:23, 8 May 2022 (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.