Daraja Press: Suggesting redirect to Firoze Manji .  IgelRM ( talk ) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the article now meets the standards required to not be deleted.  Grantennis ( talk ) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check the article now?  Please advise if more sources are needed.  Grantennis ( talk ) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are three independent sources about the publisher:
 AELAQ.  “Daraja Press.”  The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023.  http://darajapress.com .  Alllitup.ca.  “Daraja Press,” 2024.  https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/ .  Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022.  https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=_64q7S7IB-A .  Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s? k=%22Daraja+Press%22 Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search? query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis ( talk • contribs ) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder.  IgelRM ( talk ) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check now Grantennis ( talk ) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books.  What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here?  It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high.  If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia.  Please advise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis ( talk • contribs ) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be possible to convert the article into "List of books published by Daraja Press", but I am also uncertain if it fits the criteria.  The Manji article describes the publisher and maybe it could also be expanded.  What benefit to you think having a separate article has?  IgelRM ( talk ) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this IgelRM.  This is an important book publisher for marginalised voices and ideas from around the world.  At the moment most of the publishers on Wikipedia are only those that publish western authors or ideas related to western perspectives.  Should those be the only publishers with their own articles on Wikipedia?  Publishers, by definition promote their books and not their brand - that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of wikipedia but it means that when we make articles for them we need to recognize that the "sources" are going to be quite different.  Do you see where I'm coming from?  Eager to know your thoughts.  Grantennis ( talk ) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unfortunately can only reflect what gets covered in reliable sources and not what one believe is important.  IgelRM ( talk ) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was replying to your previous point on sources and your question  - "What benefit to you think having a separate article has?".  The benefit is(, in addition to above,) having independent presses well represented.  Would it be helpful to add sources to that point?  Like: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/why-american-publishing-needs-indie-presses/491618/ or https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/11/27/small-publishers-are-sweeping-the-booker-and-nobel-prizes .  These smaller publishers promote their books, not themselves.  They are extremely important for writers and readers; providing a hugely important societal benefit from behind the scenes.  Grantennis ( talk ) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources added to the main article.  Please advise.  Grantennis ( talk ) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, if sources have systemic bias, we have to reflect those sources.  A "List of books published by Daraja Press" might be better as a category.  — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources added to the main article.  Please advise.  Grantennis ( talk ) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 04:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources added to the main article.  Please advise.  Grantennis ( talk ) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We need more participation here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has a number of sources now Grantennis ( talk ) 20:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NORG .  I see only one source that might come close to meeting NORG requirements, [14] .  Not enough.  Jfire ( talk ) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many high quality sources on the article.  It's not clear what your referring to.  This is normal news-coverage for a publisher.  Grantennis ( talk ) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Grantennis , high quality sources are those that provide significant coverage and are not passing mentions.  It's not enough to know that a subject exists and has been mentioned, they need to be the subject of newspaper or magazine articles, books, stories on mainstream news websites.  Which are the top 3 sources that provide this kind of significant coverage?  Because it's not about how many sources there are, it's about quality and depth of their coverage.  L iz Read!  Talk!  22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The article currently presents 33 sources, some of which are academic, such as Google Scholar.  The user @ Grantennis seems committed to updating and maintaining the article in accordance with the project guidelines, I believe that the deletion in this case would not be applicable.  Svartner ( talk ) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked at the sources.  Only one of them even comes close to the requirements of WP:NORG .  The "Google Scholar" source is a search results page , and doesn't help the notability case ( WP:GHITS ).  Some of the books published by the press may meet WP:NBOOK , but that doesn't make the press notable.  WP:NOTINHERITED .  Jfire ( talk ) 05:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a source assessment.  Sources beyond these are all for individual publications of the press, so as I've said they don't matter for notability purposes.  Jfire ( talk ) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa (August 15, 2023) "With permission from Daraja Press" ✘ No Pradhan, Pritika (August 3, 2022) Founder is quoted ✘ No Hudon, Roxane (June 1, 2021) ~ Publisher's association, Daraja is a member ~ Partial CL (October 28, 2020) ✘ No Repeat of #1 ?  Unknown AELAQ Subject-provided copy ✘ No Fallon, Helen (2019) Mention ✘ No Malec, Jennifer (August 6, 2018) Mention ✘ No Yamada, Seiji (November 9, 2020) WP:COUNTERPUNCH Mention ✘ No Amazon.com ✘ No Google Scholar ✘ No RPA (5 September 2020) Member in list ✘ No AELAQ (14 February 2012) Member in list ✘ No RBC Member in list ✘ No LPG Member in list ✘ No MRO Self-published ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Delete as per the source analysis, none of the sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability of this company.  HighKing ++ 10:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the source table above.  * Pppery * it has begun... 03:20, 20 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete