Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternoster Press (2nd nomination)
As I brought up last time, there are independent sources in the article that discuss the subject in depth. http://archives.li.man.ac.uk/ead/search?operation=search&fieldidx1=bath.corporateName&fieldrel1=exact&fieldcont1=paternoster%20press 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 , 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  and . As written, I don't see any NPOV issues and feel it passes . I think the subject-specific notability guideline is CORP, and is basically the same as ; although it does give a fairly inclusive definition of independence, , while  is less inclusive
— User:Smmurphy, 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:NCORP||WP:N||WP:ORGIND||WP:IS (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)