Deletion of Matthias Media

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: as reliable sources references have been added to the article so that  is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: Most of the reasons provided by the Keep !voters above fail to address the primary requirement in establishing notability for any organization according to , 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 . The second reference is from the website of the "Anglican Church League" which publishes, verbatim, an announcement from the topic company. This fails . There is not a single reference that even comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG/NCORP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: Insufficient coverage. Even the gbook refs are just mentions. Insufficient to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: the keep !voters should state what coverage they think makes it meet , which is necessary for publishers to be notable. Otherwise, it's just a   argument which should be ignored by the closer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Per rationale provided by both {{u|HighKing}} & {{u|Buidhe}}. I do not for one, think there’s sufficient coverage that is required as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)