Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Stream Ministry

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

I don't think this is notable. This comes from User:69.141.225.52 contribs a.k.a. User:SeekingOne contribs seems to be promoting his religion, even if it may be semi-unintentional. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 12:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't "come from" me at all! I merely edited it twice (that was two out of 17 edits) and the article was in place months before I ever even heard of Wikipedia.  I have no special interest in this article whatsoever.  It was simply inaccurate at the time.  As for this about "promoting my religion", this is most definitely not my religion, merely an area of research, and I have no interest in promoting anything, only in providing information.  This is an encylopaedic site.  As such, it should be very extensive (although I agree with limitations, of course).  I don't think it should be a place for people to comb through articles deciding what is personally insignificant.  Religion or no religion, what is the difference?  I could easily do the same thing with other related articles in an entirely different genre.  "I've never heard of these people.  Obviously, they's only slightly notable.  The author must have an agenda.  They need to be deleted."  SeekingOne


 * Sorry, but you have produced some POV stuff articles on marginal subjects. And yes, the spread of the Western virus of the mind to China is interesting, and you're obviously knowledgeable, keep up the good work old boy.  I'm still not sure about this group though. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 14:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If you feel that my articles have a POV, then that can be fixed rather than attempting to delete entire entries (and making accusations against a user without checking their veracity). Also the question of the marginality of a subject is purely a matter of personal opinion related to personal interest in the topic.  There are countless number of very acceptable articles that would be considered "marginal subjects" by readers who are not interested.  As for this particular article, I agree that it probably isn't necessary. --SeekingOne 15:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's somewhat on the edge. I'd say it should be merged (at one sentence) and redirected to an article on the evangelical press.  There are a pile of them, and they operate on shoestring budgets.  A single article on the lot (with the exception of some of the really huge ones, like the Guideposts folks and Jack Chick) would be ok.  Therefore, make this a redirect and leave the merging up to the author. Geogre 14:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Borderline. Watchman Nee is pretty well known, but if that's all then they're pretty small. On balence, keep. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep...just. Trilobite (Talk) 02:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you'd read their books you'd want to keep it too. Possibly merge with an article about evangelical publishers. ··gracefool |&#9786; 04:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.