Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternoster Press (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paternoster Press

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

Previous AfD showed no consensus because the assertion that publishing many works creates automatic notability. That argument was refuted by the community at the AfD here. The concern is a lack of WP:SIGCOV, the Irish Times gives only a passing mention as Ravenswing has shown. The book source An Eerdmans Century p93, only gives a passing mention, as a company that a friend of the subject of the book founded.

With the absence of a specific guideline to help, WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is not met by sources for this article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I brought up last time, there are independent sources in the article that discuss the subject in depth. This history of the business is of very high quality. I added that and a couple other sources. Sources published by Erdmens may not be considered perfectly independent, as Erdmens frequently collaborates with Paternoster. The Brethren's Historical Review is published by Partnership UK Ltd, I do not know what relationship there might be between that publisher and Paternoster, but it, too, is a very good source. In any case, lack of perfect independence does not, in my opinion, automatically result in a failure to pass WP:NPOV, and this case is a fine example of that. Particularly as any argument about a lack of independence has to do with relationships between a publishing house and other writers and publishers, a relationship which is not unexpected given the nature of publishing. So in my mind we have an article with multiple reliable sources, even multiple independent reliable sources, that give in depth coverage of the subject. The article clearly passes WP:V and WP:NOR. As written, I don't see any NPOV issues and feel it passes WP:N. I think the subject-specific notability guideline is WP:NCORP, and is basically the same as WP:N; although it does give a fairly inclusive definition of independence, WP:ORGIND, while WP:IS is less inclusive. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That specific source has the following entry in the information, Name of Creator: Paternoster Press. I can't find 'multiple independent sources for this article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sounds like you are talking about the Rylands source I linked which is a history of the company written to accompany an archive at the library which was bequeathed to the library by Paternoster's Jeremy Muddit and consists of objects created by Paternoster. As User:StAnselm pointed out in the last AfD, "Name of Creator: Paternoster Press" refers to the creator of the objects in the collection. That history is published by the library. It is not listed with a specific author, and although the collection was submitted by Muddit, it would be most likely that the summary to the collection is written by a librarian or archivist. The second independent source I referred to is Summerton 2010. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok that makes sense about the Manchester Library source, but having something written about a donation to a museum is not, to me, passing WP:GNG as a grey area of the primary/secondary sources and independance. The Summerton 2010 is an obituary of Munditt, which does not address the topic directly as per the requirements for WP:SIGCOV. These sources are just not high quality enough, fulfilling all the aspects of GNG for me. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are welcome to your opinion, but Summerton certainly does satisfy SIGCOV/address the topic directly/not require OR to extract information. Similarly, in my opinion, both it and the Rylands Library Administrative History are very high quality sources. Grass 2012 is also high quality and addresses the topic directly and in depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The catalogue description of an archive in a major library like Rylands is a reliable and scholarly source. Such entries are written by professional archive librarians who are by definition scholarly experts in the sorts of material that their library holds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #2 - re-nominating the article just one month after the previous AfD seems fairly disruptive. St Anselm (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not, in fact, what #2 says. Do you have evidence that the nom's being deliberately disruptive by making this nomination, and if so, may we see it, please? In the meantime, a "no consensus" AfD can properly be refiled, and a month is scarcely the "immediately" the guideline enjoins. Ravenswing 23:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Especially as the only reason that delete voters suggested was refuted in an RfC. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. A publisher with an 80-year history, with reasonable sourcing. However, the slant of the article is promotional, with copy such as:

Later significant authors publishing in Paternoster include Tim Grass and Harold Rowdon.

If these authors were significant, I expect that they would be blue links, not red. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smmurphy. --do ncr am 23:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a scholarly book review that takes a minute to praise one of this publisher's series. Editorial time would be better spent an improving an article on a publishing house than at AfD. Any publisher that had been putting out books that get serious attention from reviewers for decades can be sourced. The Nom who started the first AfD was wasting everyone's time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they publish the materials for the Anglican Credo course. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep --Guy Macon (talk)
Comment, it looks like the above consensus means this may be a 'keeper' but why hasn't PP itself received any publishing awards, or been written about, even amongst the Christian press? or that no one has written a book about it, btw i reckon they are very important in the field of Christian publishing (including children's literature:)), it would be great if/when more sources are found. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep -- a major UK Christian publisher. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Guy Macron. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2017 (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.