Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and business


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion and business

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is two sentences long, and reads like an essay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Undecided. The topic is encyclopedic, but this article is not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Important. The topic is important. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article was indeed pretty scrawny as of nomination, but it's a pretty legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. I've added some content and sources to help bring it up to speed. —  C M B J   08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With CMBJ's additions, this is a fine start class article. Obviously, it could become a much better article, with lots of details and subsections, but this is a fair start.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Qwyrxian that the recent edits have made all the difference. Thank you, CMBJ. I can see that this may become a POV magnet in future, but that is not an issue for AfD. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I'm saying "weak" because we have other pages that pretty much cover the same material that this one eventually will. I'm saying "keep" because the subject matter is clearly encyclopedic and notable, no matter how the page started out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ten refs, some content, and potential, there is enough for it to stand on its own feet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2011 (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.