Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse Trails 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Trails Publishing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdrawn by nominator - unlikely to get consensus one way or the other. Two good references are enough to support a stub/start level version. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Non-notable organisation, not much available outsuide the groups own website, and its affiliates The Shepherd's Garden, Missions for Truth. Fails WP:ORG and doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 05:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note a review of the sources cited finds the following:

[1] is an independent source.

[2] is published by the subject

[3] is another organisaton's defence to criticism and doesn't supprot notability of the subject

[4] is a passing mention only and doesn't support notability of the subject

[5], [6] and [7] are published by the subject and its affiliated organisations. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix dead links and cleanup - I'll see if I can't re-add some notable sources and find new ones for this article, it hasn't seen much life since I created it ages ago and most of the sources appear to have gone to link rot. However, if we are going to start deleting Christian Publishing companies due to lack of notability there's a ton of affected stubs in the same category (Category:Christian publishing companies]) that have even less notability. More than likely they just need some TLC from Project:Christianity, also keep in mind some of these companies have larger offline notability with their books vs. actual "in the news" presence. - Gaming4JC (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About other stubs in the same category that might be axed, WP:OTHERSTUFF. For notability, what matters is the presence of sources, not their intrinsic notability which none can guess. If the sun has an article, it is not because all people have observed it and found it reliable, it is because some of them have discussed it in sources.

None of this addresses the question of notability, though. Tigraan (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Gaming4JC (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG as at least 2 of the refs cited appear to be okay, the others don't seem to relate and/or look like PRs or from associated sites. a quick look at google shows up some more possible refs. although there is also info about Lighthouse Treehouse Research that appears to be a part of LTP, maybe this should be incorporated into the article? with regard to other christian publishers all for someone checking out afd possibilities:) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coolabahapple could you please nominate which 2 refs appear to be OK? Lighthouse Trails Publishing is most certainly affliated with The Shephered's Garden and Missions for Truth as it is stated in the body of the article. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

change to Delete initially thought christian news wire and christian post refs were ok, but on another look they are really just regurg of LHP pov. also on closer look at google search nothing usable so doesnt meet WP:GNG Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone interested, the writers guide with "citation needed" was listed with citation for both the 2011 and 2014 edition in my reverted edit.[1] ... Gaming4JC (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, fixed it myself per WP:BOLD. Citation needed tags are unnerving. ;) Gaming4JC (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references look fine for a small book publisher. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment'- User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) most of the sources are the company website or organsiatiosn set up by the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy with the first two, which seem to me independent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Richard Arthur Norton's reasoning. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.