The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted, brought to deletion review where it was decided another go-around was appropiate. I have no recomendation at this time. brenneman^{L} 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gordon Cheng - first deletion debate
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Gordon Cheng - deletion review.

• Delete. Looking at his entry at Matthias Media [1], it seems clear that he's a church worker of long standing, but he doesn't seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria. Vizjim 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he is more than just a church worker of good standing. 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 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at that link when researching my vote. Nowhere in the article does the Herald give the impression it thinks he is "he is a notable spokesperson for the Anglican church in Sydney". It quotes him because on the forum debate the article discusses, his was the lone dissenting voice. Vizjim 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Herald is not in the habit of just quoting non-notable bloggers and chat posters. The only time I have ever seen them do this was when a sport scandal erupted, and a riot happened in Cronulla. In those cases they certainly didn't call the posters and ask for their confirmation of their comments! Therefore, I stand by all my statements. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know whether the Herald quotes unnotable bloggers as a matter of course, but it does so three times (apart from Mr Cheng) during the course of the article you cited. Vizjim 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, you can believe that he isn't notable if you'd like. However, you haven't addressed any of my other points. Out of interest, are you familiar with Sydney Anglicanism? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your other points aren't backed up with proof. In this process, the onus is on editors who want to keep an article to provide proof of their claims. If you can provide a source for the statement that The Briefing generates sales of more than 5,000 (freesheets don't count), then I will change my vote. Otherwise, it sounds as though this person merits a mention in the article on Sydney Anglicanism, but not his own biography.Vizjim 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Briefing costs $55 for a years subscription. I'm afraid I don't have exact figures on circulation, but I have been informed by Matthias Media themselves (the publishers of this monthly magazine) that they have figures of about 6,000 subscribers. They are not a free newspaper. The Briefing is one of the main publications of the Sydney Anglican church, and is published by Matthias Media. As I have said, the Herald quoted Gordon because he is quite outspoken and is a senior editor of the The Briefing. I'm sure if you would like to verify the circulation figures that they would be quite happy to confirm. Their email address is thebriefing at matthiasmedia.com.au (kept non email address format to reduce spam). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting from Matthias Media website biography for Mr Cheng - "As ‘Resources Editor’ his brief is just about anything that’s not The Briefing." Vizjim 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I can't explain that, only I have quite a few Briefings where Gordon has made significant comment on issues surrounding Anglicanism. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - He is clearly borderline, but the article is not a PR instrument, and he's published, and quoted. -Harmil 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no intention of letting it become a P.R. instrument :-) I don't agree with all Gordon's views, or the way he goes about everything, though I have quite a great deal of respect for the man. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Influences maybe, but is he notable outside his circle? No. Please dont debate this here. Use that article talk. NN Dominick ^(TALK) 14:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but notability arguments really should be discussed on AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: Ta bu shi da yu and myself have been discussing this civilly and have both put forward resources to help other editors decide a position. AfD is not simply a collection of votes. Vizjim 14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? How long has there been a "no debating" rule on AfD, and how may we convince the lunatics to relinquish control of this asylum? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally don't like to add 'me too' comments, but why would a discussion of notability re an article nominated for deletion on the basis of non-notability not be discussed / debated on the relevant AfD page? Colonel Tom 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This guy meets notability in my book. Whether it is among a particular community or not, the Anglican Church is rather large in Australia. No, I've never heard of him, but regardless. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Seems to be an author of some minor publications only, and we typically do not have articles on people with editorial positions in comparable companies. In what way does this person rise above the common herd? Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree with TBSDY here. He is very notable within the Anglican community, which is, let me tell you, a pretty freaking large one. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless significantly expanded to explain his notability. If I had stumbled across this article and it hadn't had an AFD tag on it, I would have speedied it for having no assertion of notability. Maybe he's notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but if so, this article doesn't show it. Angr (t • c) 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, if that was a valid speedy deletion then I think that our speedy deletion is broken and I would have undeleted and listed on AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per research above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ta bu shi da yu, fulfilling 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" portion of WP:BIO. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A search of an Australia/New Zealand database came up with 26 hits for "Gordon Cheng" in relation to his role in the Sydney Anglican Church. This makes him notable enough for mine as well as verifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he seems notable enough - but references to prove it would be good. Kevin 02:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable author in Australia, senior editor nn? --Terence Ong 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep would be more comfortable with an expansion. Arbusto 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I seem to recall recommending on DRV that this article should simply be undeleted, and shouldn't be listed for deletion again, because it obviously passed the guidelines and wasn't going to be deleted. I'm pretty sure that the outcome will strongly confirm my recommendation. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mackensen (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ta bu shi da yu and what I have said on the first deletion debate. Although I would add that if Gordon Cheng is worthy of inclusion, some other notable Christian authors in the Sydney Diocese (like Tony Payne and John Dickson (especially the latter)) deserve articles too. Thanks to everyone for the sensible deletion debate though - some good points have been made and it hasn't been an indiscriminate deletion for the point of it. (JROBBO 15:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, probably notable enough, although it's a borderline case. Lankiveil 05:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Angr and Stifle.--cj | talk 05:19, 22 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.