Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Tibet Campaign


 * 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. John254 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Free Tibet Campaign

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

aside from notability issues, reads like an attack piece Chris 05:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Contentious material has been removed and third party sources (BBC and Guardian news reports etc) and category have been added. A glance at the article's 'history' page would have shown the nominator that the material he objected to was a recent edit bordering on vandalism and simple reversion, rather than a move to deletion, might have been more appropriate.  Nick mallory 05:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Campaign is well-known as evidenced by BBC articles. Slightly Selassie 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Definitely notable (see above). Why the nom didn't tag the article or at least leave a message at the talk page before going to AfD is hard to understand. Malc82 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment the reason it is hard for you to understand is that the article did not establish notability when I AfD'd it. Go back in the history, that should clear it up for you. Improvements have been made since. Thanks for coming out. Chris 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep At the risk of piling on, plenty of notability is demonstrated in the article. Darkspots 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously valid article. It does seem to be a vandal magnet, however - possibly consider protecting for a while? BTLizard 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I'd endorse semi-protection, given that this is a plain magnet for Sinophilic vandalism. That aside, with over 50,000 Google hits and well-known international fame, I'm likewise bewildered at the lack of fact-checking before AfD.    RGTraynor  13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a bit hard to pick out this group from among the various campaigns to "Free Tibet" but they seem important enough as a group. Certainly doesn't read like an attack page now, exactly what and who was being attacked?  The only thing that comes close on the page was some trolling by an IP address.  That's solved by the removal of the trolling comments.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If they don't have a good enough article, it's time for a rewrite, not a deletion.--Gloriamarie 17:25, 22 May 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.