Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse Trails Publishing (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Lighthouse Trails Publishing}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Lighthouse Trails Publishing}})

The article seems to lack substance as well as anything that establishes enough notability for it to exist in Wikipedia. There is a lack of good sourcing. When doing an internet search for Lighthouse Trails Publishing, nothing really comes up except for one article by the Christian Post, something from Moody Publishing, and the rest are links to the Lighthouse Trails website. It was nominated for deletion years ago, with it being deleted and then undeleted with those caring for the article saying they would work on improvement. As it stands, there wasn't much improved upon from my perspective. I don't think notability has been established all these years since the article was created. It reads like an advertisement to me. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: Lacking substance is not a reason for deletion. Likewise, {{tq|it reads like an advertisement}} is also not a reason for deletion. Both of those are reasons to tag the article for improvement, but you can't justify deletion based on those criteria. Failure to meet WP:GNG is a reason, and you need to focus your reasoning on that. See WP:CORP for specific GNG criteria for companies (which is what this is). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Christianity, Montana, and Oregon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only one source appears to provide any kind of SIGCOV whatsoever, and it's just churnalism (Christian Post). Not seeing remotely enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per the above written by Rhododendrites. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

::Your nomination counts as your Delete vote so I've struck your duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Didn't know but now I do! Thanks for the notification. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is WP:PROMO, and I don't see any way this article meets WP:NCORP.

{{clear}}

: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.