Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireside Publishing
Because the article has no sources. I executed a Google search of the subject, using -Wikipedia, and no good, reliable sources come up. You have one usable website as a source, but it doesn't really cover the importance of the company. Now, yes, I may have come across a book published by them, but I have no sources backing up the "fact" that it's one of the largest bible publishers out there. All your so-called "references" point to sites written or owned by the company (which cannot be used under ). And, finally, if we're going to start taking in articles with no sources just because "we've heard of the company," I can start pushing up some good articles with no sources, since, after all, we just need a few people to have heard of the company, add a few links to unusable sources, and call it a day.Of course, I am not one to try to be rude or |bitey, but the whole "asserts notability" here is just tied in with the "fact" that others have heard of it. That whole clause is wacko, because anyone could write an article about "X-Thing" and say it's the 2nd fastest thing to do y-action in the world, and that asserts notability in and of itself, but there's no reliable source to back that statement up
— User:ESanchez013, 06:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SOURCES||WP:BITE (Wikipedia:Verifiability)