Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternoster Press


 * 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. "Keeps" easily outnumber "deletes", but given the developing agreement at this related RfC, as well as the more longstanding WP:NOTINHERETED, having published numerous notable works is not sufficient to cement a publisher as independently notability. As such, I can find no consensus for either keeping or deleting. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Paternoster Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Highly significant publishing house. Among other things, this can be seen in the large number of incoming links (WP:BEFORE, B5). StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did follow WP:BEFORE (which I said in my nomination). What links of those show notability? Hits prove nothing. Also, WP:CORP is the relevant thing here so how does the article pass that guideline? SL93 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep has published many significant works from notable authors. The fact is that the coverage seems to be biased toward the works, rather than the publishing house. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I frequently come across this publisher while looking for sources. This history of the business is, in my opinion, reliable. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In your opinion this source is reliable? LOL. In my opinion, John Rylands Library is the very model of a gold-plated WP:RS source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: So basically people think that WP:IAR should be used I guess. The history of the business link is a primary source from the company. I see how authors can be notable for their works per WP:AUTHOR, but I think that the publishing company getting that notability is a stretch. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Manchester Library link I posted? Why do you say it is primary and from the company? Smmurphy(Talk) 03:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The top of the article says that the creator is Paternoster Press. SL93 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the creator of the collection, not of the entry. StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if that is the case, one source is not enough to show notability and no guideline based reasons for keeping were put forth. I hope that an AFD closer would have sense to relist this AFD until guideline based reasons are given. SL93 (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources aren't strictly indicated by WP:N, rather it notes, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." I've added a couple sources, but those aren't strictly independent, as they are published by Eerdmen's, a publishing house which frequently collaborates with Paternoster. Do you think the article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? Do you think the page is better suited to be a sub-topic in another article (which one)? My answers are "yes" and "no" respectively; and I feel my previous comments and this one are based on guidelines and policies. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at WP:N again, you will see statements like "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the s. SL93 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems we are talking past each other and I'm sorry to have pushed the discussion off-topic, feel free to follow up on my talk page. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notability of a publisher can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books, just as notability of an author can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not per Wikipedia guidelines. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the case with WP:AUTHOR, I am arguing by analogy. A similar analogy would apply to an identified architect or artist about whom virtually nothing is know except that a number of notable buildings or objects are the work of a particular, named individual.  (not infrequent with material from ancient or medieval times).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the article has now been sourced. This is not to say that it is perfect, merely that we can close this discussion and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not closing the discussion. The sources are not independent of the subject. As for The Irish Times, I'm doubtful about it being significant coverage (per your obvious bias) and I can't see it. SL93 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyone can feel free to comment here - Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). An AfD is not the place to change the site-wide consensus of WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient sources have now been identified to establish the notability of, and to verify substantial content about, this significant Christian publisher.  This article provides significant, verifiable encyclopedic content which improves our coverage of the subject of Christian publishing; can't see how deletion would be a benefit. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources are not independent. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't invent standards. Nowhere is it written that "the majority" of sources have to be independent.  Editors have sourced this to 2 independent sources:  The Irish Times and the librarians at John Rylands Library. Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so intent on deleting a reputable publishing house that started putting out well-regarded books during the reign of Edward VIII.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you are the only one with access to The Irish Times source, can you tell me how many sentences or paragraphs cover the company? No matter the outcome of this AfD, my RFC is still needed because the keeps were originally about it being notable just because it publishes notable works which isn't said anywhere and is likely inventing standards. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just the sentence I quoted a snippet from, but it suffices. Paywalls area  a problem, though many editors have access to news archives.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Happily, I do have access to the Irish Times, and I am at a loss to figure how anyone claiming familiarity with the provisions of the GNG could possibly claim that this casual one-sentence namedrop meets the requirements for "significant coverage," since it most bloody explicitly does not. I am likewise at a loss as to how anyone could think that WP:AUTHOR applies to a publishing house.  Publishing houses are not authors, and I wonder what other entities E.M.Gregory would care to unilaterally rewrite (or invent wholecloth) extant notability criteria to cover where notable books are concerned.  The shipping companies?  The bookstores that sell them?  Banks that handle the financing? As far as E.M.Gregory's question uptopic, I'd like to turn that around: why are you so intent on keeping this article that you're willing to rewrite or ignore the criteria upon which we make such decisions? SL93 is exactly right: AfD is not the proper venue to legislate notability criteria, and we must determine the notability of subjects based on the criteria that are in place.  If you want to change those criteria, the appropriate talk pages are where you do it.   Ravenswing   10:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, do you think the Manchester Library source provides "significant coverage"? StAnselm (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is a significant evangelical Christian press. The criterion is verifiable, not verified.  There should be no difficulty in finding plenty of reviews of books they have published in the Christian press.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find any independent sources. IMHO, many keep !votes here are along the lines of well all publishers of lots of books are notable. This is an argument that should be thrown out, as a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen the comments about the irish times, and it seems there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV, further, online I can't find anything independant, with sigcov. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:55, 22 April 2017 (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.