Deletion of Hagiology Publishing (3rd nomination)

Comment: Four independent sources, yes, but none of them devotes more than two sentences to the publisher itself. The reviews could be used to establish notability for the individual books - ''In that number'' might even justify an article - but Hagiology would appear to fail  by a very long way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Sorry, I'm with Peejay.  |Notability is not transferable, and if this publisher does not meet the GNG or WP:ORG on its own merits, then it should be deleted or merged to the appropriate article.  Speaking of merits, can we judge ''this'' AfD on them, and not on whether the nom's daring to diss the previous consensus or whether other publishing house articles may or may not be at risk?  , please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:AGF)