Talk:A K Peters

Status

Defunct or acquired? Crasshopper (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---

A K Peters → Alice and Klaus Peters – In the recent debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A K Peters, which finished as "keep", this change of title was suggested. It would mean a change of scope of the article, for which there was support. The article would become a record of the activities of the couple behind the publisher as a whole, not just one phase of it. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 20:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose It seems to me like most of the incoming links to this page, and attention to it generally, would be from people wanting to learn about the publisher. It's hard to judge without a draft of the refocused article to examine. I'd suggest building such a draft in a sandbox, so that we can discuss specifics rather than potentialities. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two-person biographies of couples are really awkward, and tend to have a sexist effect where the man's part of the story shadows and hides the woman's. In this case, I think we have enough material about the publisher itself to avoid that issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Actually the one I know best, Iona and Peter Opie, looks to me the other way round: I started the Peter Opie article and had it merged in. I think it is a reasonable example of why that sexism is not necessarily the result, at least. Alice is still around and active. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I share David Eppstein's concern; it might not happen every time, but it's probably what will happen most of the time. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weakly support. I was the one that suggested this. My thought was that it'd be more possible to tell the story of the effect of the pair on the publishing industry, without the restriction to the narrow part of their career. I don't feel strongly, however, and similar material could be incorporated into an expanded Company History section under the current title. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: I fear that the publishing industry side of the story, which here is of clear interest, would run into issues with WP:PROPORTION. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Even much of the current material on what AK Peters published would seem off-topic for a refocused biographical article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem at all in discussing the main thing that the couple is known for in a biographical article. I see a bigger WP:PROPORTION problem with expanding the Background and Company History too greatly in the current article. Charles Matthews, is that the concern you're expressing? It is at the least harder to figure out how to work certain material in to the article on the company vs the article on the couple. For example, should the company article mention the Mathematical Intelligencer, and if so how? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, since you appear to be brushing off this concern, let me be more specific. All of the combinatorial game theory material, two of the three journals they published, and all of the material on experimental mathematics books, is backed by sources that say that the company published this material but not that either of the two Peters played a significant role as individuals in its publication. It is material about the company, not about the people. We can infer that probably they did play a significant role in choosing to publish it, because of the nature of the company, but I would argue that all of this material should be removed from any biographical article, because it is not biographical. It does not tell us anything about who the two Peters were or what they did, and it does not have any appropriate sourcing for a BLP (given that AP is still living). So the moved article would have to be significantly stubbier. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So, it looks like Alice and Klaus Peters would need to be a separate article, with A K Peters hanging off it in line with WP:SUMMARY. This is a decent solution, and @XOR'easter: may have had it right that Draft:Alice and Klaus Peters should be created so that concerns with it as a free-standing articles can be addressed. Thanks for all of the thoughts. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's my take that AK Peters *was* Alice and Klaus Peters, at least for the most interesting period. Anyway, I'm not pushing this very hard. I very much like the suggestion that we table in the absence of a concrete draft. I was going to suggest a talk page subpage here, like Talk:A K Peters/Alice and Klaus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we actually have a consensus here: that we should not move, with no prejudice against reopening a move or fork discussion in the presence of a concrete draft. I further think that we agree (and it should be recorded) that there is a serious concern that gender bias in sources etc might lead to Alice Peters getting overshadowed in a combined biographical article, but there was no consensus about how this issue should be addressed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official website - Dead Link

Official website, www.akpeters.com is a dead link 135.0.44.40 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to akpeters.com but it's just a redirect to the parent company, so we might consider removing it altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)