Talk:Austin Macauley Publishers

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because it plainly isn't. The user who initiated this process has repeatedly, while logged in and while hiding behind an IP address, attempted to excise information he considers "defamatory" to the subject's interests, regardless of their relevance, suitability or appropriateness under Wikipedia guidelines. This is sour grapes, initiated by someone who doesn't understand what Speedy Deletion is, or is used for. 131.137.245.208 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comments being added are being added by yourselves, a company known for sexual discrimination, racism and so on. The comment in 'Controversy' is not relevant to the business in any way and SFWA has never contacted us. Our changes were made by a staff member and it is marked within the changes area. As opposed to yourselves who are using a Canadian Government - Department of National Defence IP address to log your comments. This has been reported to them and your IP address is already being monitored for vandalism. Wikipedia should be a professional platform which you're abusing. A word you seem familiar with. SammiAM16 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are doubting the validity of the information, feel free to check it on their page (provided in the reference). If a controversy such as this exists, it gets mentioned in the article - that's the nature of Wikipedia (i.e. it's not for blatantly promoting your company - WP:NOTPROMO). As me and some other editor both see, the information is relevant to the Wikipedia page, and should be kept. Feel free to discuss further if you have specific concerns related to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Office location

Isn't this company based out of an office in Cambridge? There is little evidence to suggest that it has physical offices in Docklands etc

The company has a printing warehouse in Witchford, near Ely in Cambridgeshire. It's very likely their business offices are also at this location.Nelson crane (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson crane (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Actually this is their real address: The Platinum Building ST John’s Innovation Park, Cowley Road Milton, CAMBS CB4 0DS Apparently the Canary Wharf address is a vacant shop and phone calls to that address get redirected to the Milton address. Nelson crane — Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further Update: It now looks like I was right the first time and that AM are based in Witchford, not Cambridge. The address is Sedgeway Business Park, Common Road, Witchford, Ely, Cambridgeshire CB6 2HY. They are registered as two different companies at the site: Iprint Global Ltd and Author Choices Ltd. Rosanna Florence Iona Roberts is listed as being the company director since the start of 2022, and that previously it was Mohammed Bu-Malik. It looks like they did also have offices at the Platinum Building in Cambridge, but it's unclear if they're still there. I found the information here: https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/cb6-2hy Nelson crane (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory Vanity Press

I am wondering why the article does not include a section about the press' abusive, bizarre, and unethical behavior; also a section regarding the fact the vanity press produces garbage. Austin Macauley Publishers is one of the most notorious vanity press predators currently operating, and this is well-known to the publishing industry: check, for example, the WRITER BEWARE blog. Ask the Alliance of Independent Authors; ask the Writers Guild; ask any literary agent. No literary agent would advise a potential victim to sign the Macauley contracts. This is important for people to know: it belongs in the article. Desertphile (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that's mentioned in the article must be verifiable from reliable sources. Unfortunately blogs don't count as reliable sources for this kind of thing. Deb (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recent article in the Bookseller would count. Unfortunately it's not available on public access. Deb (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the source exists, you can quote from it - it doesn't have to be available online. (Or it shouldn't, anyway.) Nelson crane (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant - if you can access a hard copy. Deb (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that someone who's read the Bookseller article could quote it in the 'controversy' section and it would be considered a legitmate source, wouldn't it? Nelson crane (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated Companies?

Is it true that some of those other 'hybrid contract' publishers like Olympia, Pegasus and Novum are really just Austin Macauley under different names? Does anyone have any information about this? Nelson crane (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, there's some commonality between Austin Macauley and Olympia, but I don't know that that's evidence of them being the same firm. According to this, the only director is Rosanna Florence Iona Roberts, and she doesn't seem to be director of any of the other companies. I'd say it's unverifiable, for the moment. Deb (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]