Draft talk:Joffe Books

Notablility

User:Asilvering this page meets notability guidelines.

The sources are strictly independent The Bookseller - About Us "Each week, The Bookseller magazine is the incisive and independent source of business intelligence and analysis for the book trade. For publishers, retailers, agents, libraries, national media and festivals, we are the trusted primary source for everything that’s happening in the industry." Mutliple references are from The Bookseller, which is the leading independent magazine about publishing in Britain. It's also clearly reliable and secondary. The articles are in-depth: The Bookseller - Features - A frank canvas: From the art world to the top of the Kindle charts These are secondary sources written by independent journalists and lengthy and in-depth, clearing establishing notability.

Joffe Books has been shortlisted for Publisher of the Year, three times at the British Book Awards The Bookseller - Awards - The British Book Awards clearly establishing notability.

Dave Trevor (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "A frank canvas" article is good. However, it's only one article. I think "Joffe Books launches crime-writing prize" is also good, though some editors might call that "routine" (ie, it is a general news update about company business, not an in-depth explanation of the company itself, its history, etc). But either way that doesn't give us multiple sources - they're both the same source, The Bookseller. -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that each source is independent and in-depth, notability seems established. A third in-depth article is cited The Bookseller - News - Newport wins first Joffe Books Prize for Crime Writers of Colour

Given the publisher publishes multiple notable authors and has been shortlisted for the leading UK book awards, there seems a reasonable case to made, that it meets notability criteria.

From Wikipedia:Multiple sources "It seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." Can different articles by different journalists in the same magazine be reasonably considered independent? They are on three different topics. Given the quality of the source (independent since 1858) The Bookseller - Wikipedia, I think its reliability is established.

On a prima facie level, a publisher with multiple award nominations, publishing notable authors, and featuring in a leading magazine with in-depth articles, seems to meet Wikipedia's purpose to "contain information on all branches of knowledge." Wikipedia:Purpose - Wikipedia Dave Trevor (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Asilvering Please let me know what you think about the above? thanks Dave Trevor (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to say here that I have not already said. See WP:MULTSOURCES. Regarding "Newport wins first Joffe Books Prize", this is about Newport, not Joffe Books; there's also the argument to be made that it's routine coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I am curious that you see that the an author winning a publishing prize created by the publisher, is not about Joffe Books, the headline even includes Joffe Books?

And that the author a publisher publishes aren't what makes a publisher notable? To take an example Fitzcarraldo Editions published Nobel Prize winner Annie Ernaux in translation. Presumably that does establish the publisher's notability The authors' achievements are what makes a publisher notable, surely?

And given that, the authors published by Joffe are reference in multiple notable reliable sources. Dave Trevor (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The publishing prize created by the publisher being won by someone is coverage of that person. With regard to the publisher itself, that same article is "routine coverage" - see WP:ROUTINE - it is describing a normal event of the company's day-to-day business. If someone were to independently write an article about the Joffe Books Prize and how it has transformed publishing or something, that would of course not be routine coverage and I would absolutely argue that it was significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability. But that's not what this is. I am not sure what you think there is to be gained for you in haranguing an AfC reviewer who has declined your article, but I would request that you stop. If someone writes another article like "A frank canvas" in the Guardian or the Times or something, by all means give me a ping and I will have another look. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry you felt harangued, and I will leave this here. I was just trying to understand the criteria and expressing my opinion on your interpretation. Thank you for taking the time to reply and the effort you put into Wikipedia. Dave Trevor (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

asilvering (talk) please see the new citations, does it now meet notability requirements. Multiple sources including Daily Telegraph and Publishers Weekly Dave Trevor (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi asilvering (talk) new article https://fadmagazine.com/2025/01/10/jasper-joffee-from-painter-to-book-seller/, you asked me to get in touch if something new came up which established notability came up, thanks Dave Trevor (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I said you could ping me If someone writes another article like "A frank canvas" in the Guardian or the Times or something. That interview does not meet that bar, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

can I ask for someone else to review this please Dave Trevor (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You already have done so, by submitting the draft for review. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)