Deletion of Paternoster Press

Comment: I frequently come across this publisher while looking for sources. http://archives.li.man.ac.uk/ead/search?operation=search&fieldidx1=bath.corporateName&fieldrel1=exact&fieldcont1=paternoster%20press This history of the business is, in my opinion, |reliable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 . I have seen the comments about the irish times, and it seems there is a lack of , further, online I can't find anything independant, with sigcov
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Anyone can feel free to comment here - Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Are publishing companies who publish notable works automatically notable?. An AfD is not the place to change the site-wide consensus of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: So basically people think that  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 , but I think that the publishing company getting that notability is a stretch
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Highly significant publishing house. Among other things, this can be seen in the large number of incoming links (, B5
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)