Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British industrial mission


 * 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. Sr13 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

British industrial mission

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The sources linked do not contain the words "British industrial misssion", casting doubt that the topic as presently organized is notable. None of the statements in the article are currently backed up by sources, at it reeks of being written from the point-of-view of the mission itself to the extent that even the facts lurking beneath the pov-y tone and structure are not reported in independent sources. Tagged with {notability} since September 06. Savidan 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since GRBerry found excellent sources. *delete as essay, or unsourced POV, which comes to the same thing, unless someone wants to rewrite it & can find some sources. DGG 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere relevant. The topic seems notable, not the content as a separate article. -- Futurano 09:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that one of the dead tree sources (which are legitimate) uses "British Industrial Mission" (caps in citation in article) as part of its title. Digging further I found  which is a 15 page index to the catalog of source documents held by a single library on the topic.  At least three more less extensive archives exist, see this listing.  22 books useful for a bibliography are found here.  I conclude that sourcing exists.  (Although the library archive contents may be too primary for us to use them, the 22 books appear a solid case in and of themselves.)  With reason to believe that a decent article is possible, though it may take a UK based editor spending some library time, and with no obvious merge target visible, I think the article should be kept.  GRBerry 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Futurano. Diez2 21:29, 22 June 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.