Talk:Buddy's knife jazzedition

This page was proposed for deletion by Neutrality (talk · contribs) on 22 October 2011 with the comment:
Non-notable
It was contested by DGG (talk · contribs) on 23:19, 29 October 2011 with the comment:
First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merge to Renate Da Rin

Due to notability and other issues, I recommend merging this into Renate Da Rin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recommended to be merged into "Renate Da Rin". To me, the publishing house and its owner have to be regarded as two different subjects. I can understand your suggestion due to the notability guidelines. There are way too many publishing houses to give each and every one its own article. But in the jazz scene there are very few publishing houses that publish works of the musicians themselves, so buddy’s knife has a pretty special and outstanding position and therefor should be represented independently from its founder. I edited the article and hope that it is now qualified to meet your requirements. I considered every point you mentioned. If there are still issues, I’m happy to solve them following your arguments. BKJ14 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates are "old" but still current

An editor recently removed all cleanup templates that are at the top of the page as well as the merge-to template. I restored them all.

The merge-to is recently applied and should not be removed unless there is a consensus not to merge or there has been no discussion for a long time without a consensus to merge.
The article still needs additional sources for verification.
The article is still largely based on that of the original creator, who appears to have a close connection to the topic.
The body text of article hasn't changed much since it was tagged as reading as a "news release" in October 2011. Whether it actually sounds like a news release is debatable. @
newsrelease
}} on 29 October 2011. Does the article still read like a news release to you?
The recent AFD closed as "no consensus" which indicates that any previous "notability" template was valid as of the time the AFD closed. Had it closed as "keep" that would be an argument to remove the template. The page hasn't been significantly improved since the AFD closed, so the tag should stay.

Please make arguments to remove any of these templates here, or if it's likely to be a "non-controversial" removal, please use the edit summary to explain the removal. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "In March 2010.." is a list of the many very notable people who wrote in one of the books they published, even saying "with an incisive foreword penned by ..." It goes on to say the publisher's "Plans for the future include.."

The paragraph beginning "Published in March 2009" describes one of their authors as "Nathanson is an internationally acclaimed jazz composer whose music is inconceivable without his poetry." The description of the person goes in the article on him (and in less flowery language), not the article of a publisher of a book he wrote. .

Lists of publication by a publisher are usually improper content. List of notable publications are another matter.

I support having articles on specialty publishers, but actually this is worse than a news release: it's advertising. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]