Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform Taoism


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reform Taoism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable and I think recreation of deleted material. As I recall, this was db deleted a couple of years ago and this page reads about how I remember it being then. Since it wasn't an AfD, there is no page for it and I can't seem to find any deletion log for this page. Either way, this is non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum Interwiki link is also dead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Delete - Appears like this hasn't been covered in depth by reliable sources. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP, Not a mainstream religion but a fairly significant faith nonetheless. Have a read at their website and make up your own minds. Check here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milestokilo (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE, This is what I saw at their website - 'You are visitor number 105695', that may give an indication. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete lacks reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete In response to Milestokilo, the Reform Taoism website is a primary source and thus is insufficient to confer notability on the topic of the page, regardless of the number of pageviews it gets. (And frankly, even if the number of pageviews were relevant, barely 100K in over a year isn't that many.)  Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, and thus information in Wikipedia should be based on secondary or tertiary sources, not primary sources. Chuck (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (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.