Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Cheng (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gordon Cheng
It seems that Gordon Cheng's only claim to notability is that he a priest who happens to be somewhat active within his diocese. Troyac 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete- although sources are cited, most are affiliated with Cheng or the Anglican Church, or do not meet WP:RS (e.g. his personal blog), hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless appropriate independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)- Changed to Weak Keep as more references have now been added. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - this has already been nominated and renominated for deletion, with no new information added as to why this should be deleted. The claims to notability are already made out. This should be closed immediately. The nominator has nominated this article to make a point because I kept removing the word "priest", which is inaccurate. JRG 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Firstly, I am not trying to make a point. Priest or otherwise, I believe this article should be deleted. One could equally argue that JRG has a vested interested, since he appears in the page history frequently. Secondly, in what way could he possibly considered notable? He's a cleric? He edited the Diocese of Sydney's newsletter? He wrote for same? He wrote a few books, which were published by a printing-house closely associated with the Diocese and are probably not read by anyone outside it? None of this is remotely unusual for cleric and I don't see how it makes him notable in an encyclopaedic sense, even though he may be well known in his diocese. Troyac 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Matthias Media is not an Anglican publication, despite its beginnings and some of its staff being involved in the Anglican diocese - it's non-denominational, and is quite big in England as well as Australia. Gordon's notability comes from his authorship of his books on encouragement, etc., his notable contributions to online media, and his association with MM. He's written articles for one of the major newspapers in Sydney as well (a couple in fact in the last few months) on aspects of religion. I would refer you to WP:CIVIL for making accusations about vested interests - I keep tabs on this page because I'm sick of it being nominated for deletion after the countless debates that have already occurred here. As for making a point, it seems no coincidence that this article wasn't nominated for deletion until after I had removed the word "priest" a couple of times. JRG 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, if you want me not to make accusations about your vested interest, I would appreciate it if you were to refrain from accusing me of attempting to make a point. The only point that I wish to make is that this page ought to be deleted on the grounds that it is not remotely notable. It is clearly a vanity page. Furthermore, it seems that I am not alone in this, given that this page has been nominated multiple times before (which I didn't realise at the time I nominated it). I would appreciate it if this article were debated on its merits. I agree that Matthias Media is notable but that doesn't make its employees notable. In any event, I am not claiming that MM is an Anglican organisation, I am claiming that it is closely associated with the Diocese of Sydney, an assertion which your comments seem to support. Troyac 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Matthias Media is not an Anglican publication, despite its beginnings and some of its staff being involved in the Anglican diocese - it's non-denominational, and is quite big in England as well as Australia. Gordon's notability comes from his authorship of his books on encouragement, etc., his notable contributions to online media, and his association with MM. He's written articles for one of the major newspapers in Sydney as well (a couple in fact in the last few months) on aspects of religion. I would refer you to WP:CIVIL for making accusations about vested interests - I keep tabs on this page because I'm sick of it being nominated for deletion after the countless debates that have already occurred here. As for making a point, it seems no coincidence that this article wasn't nominated for deletion until after I had removed the word "priest" a couple of times. JRG 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Firstly, I am not trying to make a point. Priest or otherwise, I believe this article should be deleted. One could equally argue that JRG has a vested interested, since he appears in the page history frequently. Secondly, in what way could he possibly considered notable? He's a cleric? He edited the Diocese of Sydney's newsletter? He wrote for same? He wrote a few books, which were published by a printing-house closely associated with the Diocese and are probably not read by anyone outside it? None of this is remotely unusual for cleric and I don't see how it makes him notable in an encyclopaedic sense, even though he may be well known in his diocese. Troyac 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I say Keep because Gordon is only ever nominated for deletion when he gets in a debate on Ship of Fools and various people get annoyed at him and come over to Wikipedia and either try to delete or change Gordon's entry because they are grumpy at him.Knobbly 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am not actually a member of Ship of Fools, but as his article states that he has been banned from it, I find your argument unlikely. It still remains to be shown that he is notable. Troyac 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - For the information of users here, they should see the following:
There has been a majority say that this article should be kept. This debate should be closed for the reasons listed above. JRG 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no such majority. On the first page, there is in fact a majority in favour of deletion. The second page has a large number of keeps and deletes, but most of either kind fail to offer an argument to support their position.Troyac 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- And you have not offered any further information as to why this should be deleted. Please stop it. JRG 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I refer you to Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Can you provide any evidence at all that Gordon Cheng is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works"? Or even one? You argue that he is notable because he has written some books (which were published by the organisation of which he was editor). Have those books been cited in multiple non-trivial publications? Are they known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? No, no, no and no. Clearly, this individual is not notable. I believe that the onus is on you to give some reason why he should have a page on Wikipedia. Troyac 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that Gordon Cheng is discussed so much suggests to me that he must be notable. And he's well-known by people in other denominations. StAnselm 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just because he's being discussed for deletion does not mean that he is notable. Quite the opposite, in fact. Anyway, I am not disputing that he is well-known in the Sydney evangelical community. I am arguing that this does not, in and of itself, make him notable. Perhaps WikiBios would be a more appropriate place for this article. Troyac 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. An article cannot be maintained if it cannot be sourced to any non-trivial third-party reliable source. --cj | talk 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fixing the article up at the moment - there are a lot more Daily Telegraph articles written by Gordon. JRG 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as not attributable to reliable sources. There appears to only be one news article about gordon, although he appears often in the letters section of the paper, and no books about him. Appears to not have the multiple independant source requirement of WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Update comment - I've done a bit of sourcing of this article and added more information on Gordon's writings in the Sydney media, which have been fairly extensive recently and which give Gordon some notability to people outside of the Anglican church. I can look through Briefing articles to source his views on particular Christian issues, but I would hope that this is more than enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article and meet the criticisms levelled at this article for not being reliably sourced. JRG 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly but ignoring the references written by him ( which cannot really be relied on as reliable about him )...I can't see any article ABOUT gordon. He attracts some small media attention, which is as expected as he works for a PR /media arm of the church, but noone outside his employer, church and a couple of blogs has written about him ! I can't see the multiple independant, reliable sources writing articles about Gordon Cheng - Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I take your point, but I don't see the difference - not everyone needs encyclopaedias or books written on them to be a notable person. A person, for example, that gave a great speech would be notable through what that speech said. Personal details don't really matter too much for this article - it's Cheng's work that makes him notable in this case. JRG 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- But if the work were truly notable, then it would be cited elsewhere. Taking your example of the great speeches, think of some of the well-known speeches - the Gettysburg Address, for example, is certainly the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. If Cheng's work makes him notable, then surely there must have been other published works which talk about it. If you can find them, then I will concede that he is notable. Troyac 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- A newspaper article isn't going to be sourced; they are there to show the prolificity of Cheng's work in the Sydney media, and his work as an author. I've cited numerous newspaper written by him and a couple of him mentioning his work as an author - what more do you want? I think everyone is being overly harsh now - why does everyone have unreasonable expectations of an article when they don't want it kept? This article is more referenced and sourced than about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. You asked for sources, which was reasonable. I have provided them. JRG 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I asked for evidence that he is notable. These means sources that refer to him in some way but which were not written by him. One can easily be prolific without being notable and Gordon is a case in point. Troyac 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- A newspaper article isn't going to be sourced; they are there to show the prolificity of Cheng's work in the Sydney media, and his work as an author. I've cited numerous newspaper written by him and a couple of him mentioning his work as an author - what more do you want? I think everyone is being overly harsh now - why does everyone have unreasonable expectations of an article when they don't want it kept? This article is more referenced and sourced than about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. You asked for sources, which was reasonable. I have provided them. JRG 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- But if the work were truly notable, then it would be cited elsewhere. Taking your example of the great speeches, think of some of the well-known speeches - the Gettysburg Address, for example, is certainly the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. If Cheng's work makes him notable, then surely there must have been other published works which talk about it. If you can find them, then I will concede that he is notable. Troyac 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I take your point, but I don't see the difference - not everyone needs encyclopaedias or books written on them to be a notable person. A person, for example, that gave a great speech would be notable through what that speech said. Personal details don't really matter too much for this article - it's Cheng's work that makes him notable in this case. JRG 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well sourced article. Notability established.--ZayZayEM 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per ZayZayEM. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per ZayZayEM et al. thewinchester 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, article appears well enough sourced for me. Multiple media appearances seem to establish notability. Lankiveil 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
- Strong Delete all sources are Gordon's Cheng. He is not notable, there appear to be many sources mentioning him but they are
allhis. --FateClub 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Have you even read the sources? They are not "all his" - there are articles there by major newspapers in Sydney, including ones not written by him - and even if he did write some, they aren't published by him, but by major news and media sources unrelated to his work. It really sounds like you haven't read any of the sources. JRG 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. That's why I say let's delete this article and reserve articles for notable people. --FateClub 17:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you have read them. None of those sources are written and published by Cheng in order to make them unreliable - and the ones that he has written were published (and probably commissioned - you can't just send something in and have it published normally) by Sydney's most read newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. And at least 8 of the 15 references were not written or published by Cheng. To say "they are all his" is blatantly untrue, don't you think? JRG 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, I changed "all" to "most". --FateClub 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you have read them. None of those sources are written and published by Cheng in order to make them unreliable - and the ones that he has written were published (and probably commissioned - you can't just send something in and have it published normally) by Sydney's most read newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. And at least 8 of the 15 references were not written or published by Cheng. To say "they are all his" is blatantly untrue, don't you think? JRG 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. That's why I say let's delete this article and reserve articles for notable people. --FateClub 17:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - and just to note: Gordon Cheng is not a priest nor is he a minister. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
