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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Matthias Media

Matthias Media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources Investigatory ( talk) 10:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - well known publisher in Australian Christian circles, closely linked with the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and Phillip Jensen. The article could be better sourced but the publisher is well known. Deus et lex ( talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per Deus et lex-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 00:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable publisher, influential internationally. I have added a couple of citations, one antagonistic which indicates notability. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can tell, neither of these provides WP:SIGCOV. ( t · c) buidhe 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as reliable sources references have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most of the reasons provided by the Keep !voters above fail to address the primary requirement in establishing notability for any organization according to WP:NCORP, which is the existence of references that meet the appropriate criteria. Being a "well known publisher" is meaningless and has nothing to do with our guidelines. Well known to who? Which references support this assertion? etc. Feyenatic above refers to two references that they added to the article. The first reference is a book named "Sydney Anglicans and the Threat to World Anglicanism: The Sydney Experiment" but this merely namechecks the company. The first reference says that the topic company shares a building complex with the AFES, all the rest are in relation to a paper or books that the topic company has publishe. There is no detailed information on the company in this reference, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference is from the website of the "Anglican Church League" which publishes, verbatim, an announcement from the topic company. This fails WP:ORGIND. There is not a single reference that even comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't agree. This meets GNG. Unless you're from Australia I suspect you won't be aware that this is a prominent publisher. Deus et lex ( talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Saying you "don't agree" with only a vague "meets GNG" rebuttal is pointless. If this publisher is as prominent as you say, please provide references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, can't get simpler than that. HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete the keep !voters should state what coverage they think makes it meet WP:NORG, which is necessary for publishers to be notable. Otherwise, it's just a WP:ILIKEIT argument which should be ignored by the closer. ( t · c) buidhe 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - it has received independent coverage and is a widely known publisher of books in Australia. It has published the winner of the Australian Christian Book of the Year several times. If you're not Australian you will not know its notability. It's not an "I like it" argument. I should also note (looking through the other Australian publisher articles) that this has more sources than most others do (and don't quote "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" back to me). Deus et lex ( talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - another source added from a theological journal. Note also that The Good Book Company is Matthias Media's UK arm (now a separate company). Deus et lex ( talk) 20:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Insufficient coverage. Even the gbook refs are just mentions. Insufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep ^Talk 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note to closing moderator and comment - I want to defend this article being on Wikipedia (noting that I didn't write it and haven't contributed to it and don't have anything to do with it). This is not some advertising page, Matthias Media is a large Australian Christian publisher with a 30 year history of publishing religious books, not just in Australia but elsewhere too. I really get tired of having to defend articles where editors do not more than look through the first two pages of a Google search and if they don't find anything just vote delete. There are sources out there, but the history of the publishing industry in Australia is not something that is frequently looked at, so they are going to be hard to find, probably more in books and aren't going to be the sorts of things that will automatically appear on Google searches. I don't have time right now to add to this article but would like at least the chance to do that rather than for it to just get deleted. Some points to raise:
  • It is strongly associated with Philip Jensen and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, even Muriel Porter who is no friend of those two has written about it as its "publishing arm" - so at the very least it should be merged and redirected to his article given that he founded it;
  • Its UK spin-off, The Good Book Company has its own Wikipedia page which will be ironic that the subsidiary survives but the head company doesn't;
  • It has won or been a finalist in the Australian Christian Book of the Year Prize
  • The theological article I added last week (after this AfD commenced and the first delete voters commented) does give it far more coverage than just routine coverage - showing that it does meet GNG from at least one source that is external and is not routine. I'm very confident you can find more;
  • I've read through the list of Australian publishers and lots of them are terribly sourced. It feels just a little unfair for some user that doesn't even have a user page to target this one in particular.
• This is a notable publisher in Australia. The article is worth keeping and I ask that a chance be given to keep it. Deus et lex ( talk) 12:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - and as a requirement of considering alternatives to deletion the merge to Phillip Jensen should be considered before any consideration is given to full deletion. Deus et lex ( talk) 08:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I would suggest Anglican Diocese of Sydney as a more appropriate merge-and-redirect target if there is not a consensus to keep the article.– Fayenatic London 14:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Given the publisher was founded by Jensen himself, and it is not owned or operated by the diocese (despite the criticism levelled against it in one of the sources and the fact there is a strong association) I think that is probably less of a good option. Deus et lex ( talk) 22:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above. Not a no-name publisher, and doesn't fail GNG. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 05:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment It is notable that to date, no references have been specifically identified as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. This is a requirement as per WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

in your opinion regarding the references, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

That's not correct. An academic journal has been added that has an in-depth section on the publisher. See my comment on 7 October. Deus et lex ( talk) 23:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete — Per rationale provided by both HighKing & Buidhe. I do not for one, think there’s sufficient coverage that is required as per WP:ORG. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Celestina007, I've explained above why this is notable. Those comments by those users were added before more sources were added. There are more, they are just not online. This is a notable publisher, and you haven't considered the requirement to consider alternatives to deletion. Please show some good faith and give the benefit of the doubt. The Eveson article [1] has an entire section on the publisher and shows there are notable sources. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment to closing moderator - please take into account my comments above. This is a notable publisher, and I have tried my best to add some sources. This article is being held to a higher standard than many others and that is not right. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - also, as a further matter, the magazine published by the subject of this article also has its own article ( The Briefing) which suggests yet another anomaly about why it is inappropriate to delete this article. Deus et lex ( talk) 11:36, 26 October 2020 (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.