Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireside Publishing


 * 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 keep.  Merging is an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fireside Publishing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a publishing company; does not have reputable, third-party sources to verify the information claimed makes it "notable." Seems to be only a way to advertise; no real information —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article does assert their notability as a leading publisher of Catholic Bibles. I have heard of them and I am not even Catholic. The article itself could be improved and better sources found. Borock (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you counter the argument that no such sources exist? Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Give it some time, it's been up for just a few days. Re-visit in a few months. Re-nominate if no-one's worked on it since. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If no sources exist, giving more time won't help. Show that sources exist.  Vague handwaving about revisiting doesn't help.  That's just prevarication.  Citing sources is what helps.  Cite multiple independent reliable sources that cover this subject in depth, and make an argument that actually holds water. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why Mr E. Sanchez is bent on deleting this article is beyond me - firstly a request for a speedy deletion, that was downgraded by someone else. Then after I have improved it and added other references, he has requested its deletion again. They are one of the largest members of the Catholic publishers association, one of the biggest Catholic Bible publishers and they were the first publisher of the New American Edition. If this is still not satisfactory to constitute what is notable for Mr. Sanchez, please kindly explain why. Hans1964 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Because the article has no sources. I executed a Google search of the subject, using -Wikipedia, and no good, reliable sources come up. You have one usable website as a source, but it doesn't really cover the importance of the company. Now, yes, I may have come across a book published by them, but I have no sources backing up the "fact" that it's [one of] the largest bible publishers out there. All your so-called "references" point to sites written or owned by the company (which cannot be used under WP:SOURCES). And, finally, if we're going to start taking in articles with no sources just because "we've heard of the company," I can start pushing up some good articles with no sources, since, after all, we just need a few people to have heard of the company, add a few links to unusable sources, and call it a day. Of course, I am not one to try to be rude or bitey, but the whole "asserts notability" here is just tied in with the "fact" that others have heard of it. That whole clause is wacko, because anyone could write an article about "X-Thing" and say it's the 2nd fastest thing to do y-action in the world, and that asserts notability in and of itself, but there's no reliable source to back that statement up. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 06:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has 3 external sources - I did add additional text to improve the article after Mr. Sanchez wanted to 'speed delete' the article. Yes, a very quick google search doesn't bring up anything, although a longer search shows an interesting court case (which I added as a reference) - doubtless other information can be found with deeper searches. Delete if you wish Mr. Sanchez, but I think you'd be acting more impartially if you tried to improve the article insteadHans1964 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Reply/Comment No, it has a series of external links that point to the following websites:
 * Firesidebibles.com, cannot be used because it's self-published
 * Firesidecatholic.com, again, self-published
 * Now, the Google Books book you have there is that source for your Minnesota court case, but it just basically says, "these guys publish bibles, they got sued, now they'll publish different bibles." My final point is that the Google search should bring up relevant articles within the first two pages, but it's just mentions of "oooh! Bibles!" and other non-encyclopedic or non-informative stuff. I did try to look for sources to expand the article, but I couldn't find anything to start me off. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 15:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Trim heavily and merge to DeVore & Sons Inc., on grounds that there are sufficient sources to make it verifiable that this publisher exists, but not sufficient to demonstrate notability that would establish that it merits a separate article. But I do expect DeVore & Sons Inc. to be nominated for deletion if it isn't sourced PDQ.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:18, 14 August 2009 (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.