Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest House


 * 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. Tone 08:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvest House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Original reasoning by user Gaming4JC in 2012 was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals... Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. This rationale still stands today, as a quick search in 2019 shows other organizations under this name, but not this one. Jalen Folf  (talk)  03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Jalen Folf   (talk)  03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Jalen Folf   (talk)  03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  Jalen Folf   (talk)  03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment (see below) This isn't my usual area, but I found this reliable source which says it "grew into one of the top five Christian publishers in North America by 2000". Chubbles (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep.Here is another mention from a reliable source, though more of a passing mention. It's always hard to search Google Books for coverage of publishers, since most results are the books they publish. There are couple hundred GNews results for "Harvest House publishers", including the significant coverage Chubbles mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename to Harvest House Publishers, but keep article. A publisher that can manage 160 books per year ought to be notable, with a lot of their authors having WP articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable publisher. No unsponsored non-trivial coverage could be located. For instance I added a useless publisherweekly ref to the article and little else could be found. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the source found by StAnselm is a passing mention. If anyone finds any secondary non-trivial coverage ping me and I will reconsider. Wm335td (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Changing to keep. Forbes named Harvest House "among the leaders in the field" of Christian publishing, and they get routinely covered by Publishers Weekly. (Amusing side note: they're putting out Carson Wentz's children's book.) They're noteworthy enough for inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: Publisher's weekly seems entirely unreliable. I have run into it before when discussing non notable authors and publishers. For instance. Harvest House pays them to get featured content. Look at the top of this article which says "Sponsored by Harvest House Publishers". The Forbes is barely a passing mention without even so much as a comment about Harvest House. And the Carson Wentz book is actually a book written by Zach Ertz, who is a football player, not an author. If that is what we have to go on, this company is not notable at all. Wm335td (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Publishers Weekly is a reliable source used in thousands of articles but like even The New York Times they include some sponsored content which is the case here so it is not a reliable source in this instance, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atlantic306. Yes, it is hard to have editorial integrity when you are paid by a company include an article which looks to boost their notability. So I proceed with caution. Wm335td (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Atlantic306 mentions may be sponsored, but it isn't included in the trio that I posted, which, as far as I can tell, all appear to be independent journalism. That strikes me as similar to something like Billboard in music - they have some sponsored articles, but also independent journalism, and the presence of one should not obviate the other, even for entities that do pay for sponsorship. (I think this is pretty common in music, in fact - Alternative Press, for instance, used to have tons of ads for Victory Records and Rise Records, including some that sort of looked like articles and were identified as ads. But the magazine also reviewed their albums independently, and those reviews would have been valid for establishing notability.) The Eugene Register article I found seems to have been overlooked in this discussion, and when Forbes says you're a heavy hitter, even in a passing mention...I think that is a pretty clear indication of something. (Mind that the house has been in operation for 45 years; some of the coverage of it in its heyday may be offline.) Chubbles (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as per the sources supplied by Chubbles, more are probably available offline but there is enough for a reprieve from deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chubbles.4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2019 (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.