The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Restore and relist. Now at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gordon Cheng (Second nomination)

Gordon Cheng is one of the more influential editors and thinkers amongst Sydney Anglicans. I realise before we had a flood of new editors and anonymous editors, but then that alone does not make him unnotable. Gordon is a senior editor of The Briefing, frequently published letter-writer and was recently quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald in response to a defamation case. I would like to have the article undeleted and worked on. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure based on the evidence presented. The comments above and the content of the prior versions do not convince me that he qualifies under the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. Being a magazine editor is not sufficient for inclusion. We would not automatically include individuals of similar stature and seniority from other professions. Being a "frequently published letter-writer" and getting a single quote even if in a major newspaper is also insufficient in my view. The only claim above that seems plausible to me is the claim that he is "one of the more influential editors and thinkers amongst ..." but that is a very subjective statement. Without verifiable evidence to back it up, I don't think there's a sustainable basis for an article. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't wish to say this in a harsh way, but he is a senior editor of the The Briefing. According to the notability guideline, he fulfills the "published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". The Briefing is circulated to way more readers than that. He has a great deal of influence over the readership as he writes a great deal of editorial content. Gordon has also created several evangelistic aids. Basically, Gordon is extremely notable in his sphere of influence, that is, Sydney Anglicanism. He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on a spat and defamation case between Dr Belinda Goodenough and South Coogee Anglican church (see article). Evidently the SMH believes he is a notable spokesperson for the Anglican church in Sydney. Gordon was also the former Pastor of St Matthias Centennial Park, the church that basically sets the agenda for conservative evanglical Sydney Anglicanism. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I consider the previous debate hardly ideal. It seems very few commenters on the side of the deletion, and none on the side of retention, said anything substantial. Although I cannot fault the close, as the result was completely unambiguous given the newbie-flood, we now have a respected contributor asking to reevaluate and improve this article. I believe the article did not have an adequate defense at the previous AfD, and I would like to see if TBSDY can make something of it. Xoloz 00:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and, I hope, rewrite. The claims could be strengthened with discussion of his positions, thinking, and actions resulting from his leadership. Geogre 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list. I agree entirely with Xoloz. - Mark 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, per Xoloz. The previous AfD was a shambles, with what little passed for intelligent comment coming only through a filter of very poor information. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Reading this, it seems clear the Deletion Police were at it again, deleting articles without really checking with people who knew about the subject. We don't all live in Oz but that doesn't make those who do insignificant. Gene Ward Smith 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. No point relisting as he obviously satisfies the normal guidelines so there isn't a chance of the article being deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per Tony Sidaway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
undelete this please the article should be improved instead Yuckfoo 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.