Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banner of Truth Trust


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   no consensus. Courcelles 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Banner of Truth Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced stub on obscure religious publisher. I could find no evidence of any substantive coverage, just the very occasional passing mention, and somewhat more frequent citation of this or that book that they are listed as the publisher for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet the guideline for companies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly meets WP:NONPROFIT (if that applies), and the citations given satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not need to meet the guideline for companies as it is not a company, but a (non-profit) charitable trust. The alternative guidelines (for nonprofits) i.e. WP:NONPROFIT is what we need to apply. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The problem is trawling through the 46,000 mentions on Google Books to find out which mentions are about the publishing house. But there are a number, and they connect the BoT (along with Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones to a revival of interest in the Puritans in 20th century England. E.g. Alister McGrath's biography of J. I. Packer mentions the "revival in Puritan spirituality that had been borne aloft on the wings of Banner of Truth's inexpensive paperbacks." Streams Of Civilization: Cultures In Conflict Since The Reformation Until The Third Millennium After Christ by Garry Moes has a section on British Evangelicalism and refers to the BoT in context of the "revival of evangelical Calvinism." So I can get two references without too much trouble - I am sure there are many, many more. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mere mention is not "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News finds a number of stories discussing this publisher, and several books discuss its role in raising the profile of Jonathan Edwards and Puritan theologians among evangelicals, and its influence more generally. See, for example, Timothy George's J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought (p. 1874, 1898, 1900, 1904-1908). -- 202.124.74.52 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future never gives the Banner of Truth Trust more than passing mention, not significant coverage. If you have found news stories giving the topic more than passing mention (I could find none) then I suggest that you cite them -- vague claims that 'they exist somewhere' are never compelling at an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a great many such mentions, in a range of books; in aggregate, these constitute significant coverage, I believe. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" explicitly requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" -- passing mention does not provide that detail, particularly when (as most frequently happens) many of these mentions are making the same superficial points. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess there's a difference of opinion here: in my view, since the book mentioned above discusses the Banner of Truth Trust on at least half a dozen pages, it is providing significant coverage (and it's not the only source). It also seems clear, on the basis of the cites so far, that this publisher has played a large part in shaping not only English, but also American Evangelical thought, and is notable in that regard. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And rarely, if ever, on those "half a dozen pages" does it mention the Trust in two sentences in succession. I would therefore tend to discount any "opinion" that claims that this is "in detail". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It meets WP:NONPROFIT, which does apply in this instance, because: (a) it is a non-commercial enterprise (being a charitable trust); and (b), the scope of its operations are international; as it trades (i.e. publishes and sells books etc) in both the UK and North America (under separate trust structures), and exports to other parts of the world; and (c) information can be verified from third-party, independent, reliable sources. Apart from the references mentioned above, the independently audited accounts are freely available online from the national charities regulator in the UK viz. the Charity Commission for England and Wales. These accounts confirm that Banner is indeed a non-commercial organisation and that the scope of its operations are international. So, using WP:NONPROFIT, we should keep the Banner article. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, publisher with significant influence within a sector of UK Christianity. The article has a good number of incoming links, and it is helpful for readers to be readily able to identify the publisher's editorial leanings. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.