Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Briefing

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Briefing

The Briefing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This magazine seems to be of parochial interest but is not notable and does not assert any notability. Moreover, a quick search of the references and possible online references reveals no significant coverage of this media source independent of the subject itself. Therefore, I do not believe this article can ever rise to becoming notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nondistinguished 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• KeepWeak Delete - When articles on goods or services in wikipedia do not assert notability I think its best they be deleted. If some third party sources are found I would change my view to keep.Brusegadi 04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Per below comments about popularity in Australia. Brusegadi 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The Briefing has been around for over 10 years and is published in Australia, England and America. Like any other niche publication it is not well known in the mainstream press but it is well known among Christians in Australia and is growing in profile in England and America. It is also notable for the fact of it being a good expression of 'Sydney Anglicanism,' a disproportionately influential evangelical group of Christians. All that aside I doubt the neutrality of nondistinguished, (Who nominated this article for deletion.) because if they were really serious about pursuing this topic they would included reputable circulation sources instead of a vague reference to a quick search of google.Knobbly 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  You assert a notability among certain groups but provide no evidence for your assertion. I have no doubt that this publication expresses a particular viewpoint and that it has subscribers and people who are aware of it. However, I question whether it is rises to the level of notability as outlined by the consensus of Wikipedians. You also should be careful in your insinuations of bias. Everybody has a bias, as pointed out in our neutrality guidelines. You have a bias, I have a bias, we all have biases. However, that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to put aside those biases and discuss whether or not a subject is notable or not. If you have circulation data, please offer them for us to consider. But don't just attack my good faith nomination please. Nondistinguished 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I don't have any figures, yet. But just importantly, neither do you! Your making a deletion request based on what? A link to notability?? More realistically you should outline clearly what each of your reasons are for deletion. Like: Circulation below 10,000, Not enough Google hits, Not mentioned in the Australian Newspapers, etc. This would make it easier to prove or disprove and would be less susceptible to bias or agenda. I also wonder how you exactly measure notability. Are you going to go after Eureka Street next or the Central Western Daily?Knobbly 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my explanation is clear enough as to why I don't think the subject is notable. Namely, there does not seem to be any third-party coverage of this magazine. If you believe differently, you are free in this discussion to list your reasons. It is my stated belief that WP:N gives fairly clear criteria and that this particular article does not rise to the standards outlined there. What's more, we are debating this article only. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for these deletion debates. Nondistinguished 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITSis not a good measure for proving how un-notable something is.Knobbly 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no good reason to delete this article. Currently it is small, but it has the potential to be expanded and improved. The Briefing has a wide readership in at least 2 countries. I have come across many other articles on topics which are far less notable, in my view, yet they have not been put up for deletion. Tonicthebrown 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  The last sentence here is perilously close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keeping this article. Let's try to avoid that kind of argument, please. Nondistinguished 11:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does not show that the magazine is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. There are no third-party sources at all. By its nature, if a magazine is influential, you would expect that it would be commented on in the press. EdJohnston 05:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been commented on by the Sydney Morning Herald, though I would have to dig through their archives. Is that notable enough for you? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tonicthebrown, couldnt have put it better myself --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete looks to me that it might not have any sort of notability outside its target audience, showing in the lack of coverage from RS Corpx 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Odd nomination to say the least, perhaps reflecting the lack of sources in the article mentioned by EdJohnston rather than the notability of the subject. This is clearly a well known and substantially quoted magazine, if hard to google as the word "briefing" is not that unusual, but I quite quickly found examples of non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. Here are three (which I will also add into the article):

1) Cross Rhythms has a substantial discussion about the magazine’s critique of a Hillsong Church event[[1]].

2) Ronald McCaulay’s paper ‘The Great Commissions’ (Cambridge Papers, Vol 7 No 2, June 1998) [[2]] criticises an article in the magazine, clearly treating it as a significant and notable publication whose views (though in this case unhelpful) had to be considered.

3) The campaign group ‘The Micah Challenge’ recommend it as a “gatekeeper for new ideas and approaches”[[3]].

Regards to all fellow Wikipedians. Springnuts 07:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort Springnuts, but in all of these references the coverage of the magazine is trivial. Can you identify a reliable secondary source which discusses The Briefing instead of just mentioning it or citing it?--Yannick 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! You wanted to know if it was notable. These references show notability, because the articles are about what the magazine has said. They most definitely demonstrate notability. I should also note that the Cambridge Papers is a reliable source. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these sources show that The Briefing carries articles about notable subjects, not that the magazine itself is notable. I am not disputing the reliability or independence of Springnuts's sources; I am pointing out that they do not include substantial coverage of the magazine in question. For example, if we were trying to establish the notability of Maclean's magazine, I would be looking for a source like this one which reports on a new editor-in-chief, or maybe this paper which discusses Maclean's role in Canadian culture. Pulling out a bunch of citations to Maclean's magazine would be insufficient evidence of notability.--Yannick 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep evidently, the one doing the listing doesn't realise the tremendous influence this magazine has over Sydney Anglicans, nor do they understand that it is one of the strongest voices of Mathias Media. This magazine is very notable within this circle, and is very controversial outside of this circle. Strongly advise that this article be kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - per the above who have resolved to keep, plus as someone from Sydney, I know that the view of the Sydney Anglican Diocese is often well-espoused and mentioned by outside media often by referring to the Briefing and its authors and associates - frequently the opinions of persons such as Phillip Jensen (which are controversial according to many outside the diocese, both Christian and non-Christian) have been discussed through the magazine. JRG 08:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the nominator's entirely flawed reasoning. He says "a quick search of the references and possible online references reveals no significant coverage of this media source independent of the subject itself. Therefore, I do not believe this article can ever rise to becoming notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia". So a 'quick' google by one person means that this article could NEVER be notable because sources could never be found? The absurdity of that statement has already been demonstrated with other sources being discovered and given here. Nick mallory 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article lacks reliable secondary sources about the magazine. Nobody's saying that we will never find these sources, or that they will never be written, but you'll have to point them out to us naysayers in order to establish notability to our satisfaction.--Yannick 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to everyone that this is not a valid deletion reason. We have never deleted due to article quality. If the article is poor, send it to cleanup. We only delete in situations where there is no way of validating or referencing information, or in cases where the article is deliberately POV or unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - I think you are wrong, Yannick on a number of counts. You make two points: one in your edit (lacks reliable secondary sources) and another in your edit summary, but not in your edit, (Not true. Scroll up to see my edit, please.--Yannick 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)) that the sources found are trivial. OK:

Since I give sources you are presumably saying they are not secondary, and/or not reliable. I picked two of the three precisely as they are in various ways critical of the magazine. They are by people un-connected with the magazine and show that analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation that secondary sources will show. Their reliability is suggested by their being written by people unconnected with the magazine, and by their criticality.

But secondly, I should not need to make the arguments above. The original complaint was "no sources" - now that some have been found and added the 'burden of proof' has shifted. It is no good now just saying that the sources are trivial - you have to argue the point, not just assert. Engaging in a debate, rather than slinging bare assertions, is one way that we all demonstrate our good faith. So stand at the bar and shy at the coconuts - I've lined three up for you!

<Removed own unnecessary, grumpy and not very graceful comment>. Springnuts 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Springnuts, please engage in the debate by scrolling up the page and looking at my response to your sources. In that earlier edit, I explained that your sources provide trivial coverage of the magazine. I agree that they are independent and may be reliable, but they just mention The Briefing, rather than discuss it. This is evidence that the magazine exists, and that some of its articles may have been notable, but this is not evidence of the magazine's notability.--Yannick 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. An article that lacks sufficient sources needs to be sourced, not deleted. This and this appear to be independent, albeit Christian, sources that reference The Briefing and suggest notability. bobanny 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These are indeed independent sources that cite articles from The Briefing, but they say very little about the magazine itself. This indicates that The Briefing publishes articles about notable topics, but does not establish the notability of the magazine itself. --Yannick 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per bobanny RegRCN 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if you know anything about the Anglican church in Australia then you'd understand the reason this magazine is notable. The Briefing is regularly mentioned (perhaps unfairly) as the journal of the Anglican Church League in discussions of religion in Sydney and Australia. The magazine is also notable because of its association with the Jensen's and leaders within the evangelical movement in Australia. Journeyman 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A magazine is not notable because a few scattered sources refer to a few articles in it, and all the citations given seem to be of that sort. If Journeyman can show that this is regularly considered the voice of a notable religious group, then the magazine is notable.DGG (talk) 07:32, 19 August 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.