Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Shaddai (movement)


 * 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. JForget 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

El Shaddai (movement)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability asserted but not established by references. Almost completely unreferenced. Contains some mixture of excessively promotional material with blp-dubious "criticism", which is potentially defamatory accusations that the leaders of the group are scam artists. If an article about this topic were to be on Wikipedia, it would have to be restarted almost from scratch. ⟳ausa کui ×  21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator ⟳ausa کui  ×  21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – More than enough third party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources to establish notability, as shown here . A reason of; “…an article about this topic were to be on Wikipedia, it would have to be restarted almost from scratch” is not a valid reason to bring to AFD sorry. ShoesssS Talk 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might want to respond to the other reasons, not just the one you thought was weakest. ⟳ausa کui  ×  21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I Thought I did by showing the refernces, and I am more than happy to edit the piece, and will start over the next couple of days. But thought that you may also enjoy building an article rather than proposing to delete a piece, that though badly written, does deserve a small space here at Wikipedia.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @930  · 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the polemical criticisms are edited. Heavily. Collect (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources found and included above, cleanup the rest of it, stubbifying if necessary. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is the biggest Catholic Charismatic group in the Philippines with more than 8 million followers worldwide, as stated in the article, which has a reference. Although I agree that it needs rewriting and clean-up, the reason given by the nominator does not merit deletion per WP:DEL.  If there are unnecessary content in the article then remove it.  When I started the article, it's very neutral. --Jojit (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. None of the nominator's reasons point that the article should be deleted but instead rewritten. Please don't use AfD to force improvement to the article. --seav (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2009 (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.


 * Weak Keep notability has been established, however that doesn't mean that the article isn't in need of a major NPOV rewrite. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)