Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England


 * 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 delete. The arguments still appear to be mostly valid even after the reversion. --Core desat 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

hopelessly POV, doesn't seem to be notable Makerowner 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice that someone else could write a completely different article on this subject that we could keep. no comment on notability; can't tell from article.  But extremely unencyclopedic article, and lacking context as well.  Capmango 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice due to bias issues. --Metropolitan90 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a possibly WP:Fringe topic (at least from the Yankee perspective) that is POV in addition to being totally unreadable. VanTucky 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think it's a fringe article (this isn't the American Wikipedia; an article about a notable British phenomenon is just as notable as one about an American phenomenon), but it's hopelessly POV. I think a good article could be made out of the topic, but this is not the article. In fact, it reads like an essay someone did in school one day. -- Charlene 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like a POV essay. It might be possible to write a decent article on this, but as we'd have to start from scratch we might as well delete it. Hut 8.5 09:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no encyclopedic material not included in the article about the parent body, the Free Church of England. That this article doesn't even link to that one demonstrates its  uselessness in its present form..  DGG 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete when I was earning my history degree, I used to say that History should be a B.S. degree because we BS'ed around that which we didn't know... this article seems like one where in a person BS'ed around the fact that s/he didn't know.Balloonman 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have reverted to this article to an older edit. Some of the above criticisms are less valid when considering the older text (e.g. less POV). If there is going to be a vote on keeping the article or not, perhaps it should be re-done, based on the older version, before un-encyclopedic edits were made. -- BenStevenson 22:48, 3 July 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.