Talk:Bluffer's Guides

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

The series of books may be notable, I really don't see how the publishing house is.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it's updating the existing page on Wikipedia for Oval Books. Bluffer's Guide books are a part of the (British) public consciousness and in the public eye and - having been advised to do so - I have added citations proving this from a number of authority sites - including the BBC and four national newspapers. I can add more if required to do so. I only added a link to bluffers.com to prove that the books are being sold in the shop there. This was not done to promote the site, but rather as demonstrable proof of ownership of the Bluffer's Guides titles.

Apparently I didn't get this in on time this morning. So I'm trying again. Please can you let me know, what I need to add to make this acceptable. One of the criteria is that they have to be cited by recognised publications. I have added authority sites and links to authors on Wikipedia. The Bluffer’s Guides are publications in their own right and are available in book shops. Would ISBN codes help?

Please advise me.

Thank you!

Edward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatshaddock (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Goatshaddock, the only thing you have done by providing the references is demonstrate that the books exist. Otherwise, there is no indication of notability. PRIMARY sources such as interviews or articles written by one of their own authors do not do this. You need independent reliable sources that discuss the company itself (not just a handful of book reviews). Primefac (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Primefac, thank you for getting back to me. I spent a long time in your chatroom yesterday and was told that I need reviews etc. from notable sources such as newspapers. That's why I added them. Obviously, that's not correct. I had previously added an interview with the company's MD from an independant marketing journal in which they discuss the company - and was informed that this wasn't an applicable reference either. And was also told an interview in the UK book trade magazine The Bookseller wasn't independant enough. It's very difficult knowing what to produce. But I shall see what else I can add. Thanks for getting back to me. Edward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatshaddock (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's relevant that Oval Books is up for deletion as a non-notable company. IMO this company is also non-notable, although I also consider that the series of books probably are notanle: I think this article should be re-written as an articl3e on the series, & the publishing house only needs to be a redirect to that article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bluffer's Guides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic