Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian True Orthodox Church


 * 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   speedy keep. Per WP:SK #1 (non-admin closure)  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  17:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbian True Orthodox Church

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Shows no indication for significance. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep after I expanded and referenced it. Note that the references include three full-scale articles from major Serbian newspapers of Blic, Politika and Večernje Novosti from different years. Steve Lux, Jr., would you like to consider withdrawing the AfD? No such user (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Nomination was justified but the work since seems more than enough to justify keeping it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete . There is nothing significant about this article. No one cares about this church. It is simply uninteresting and a waste of space. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to vote twice.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those are valid reasons for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR No argument for deletion.  The nom reads a bit like an A7 argument, but the article at the time of nomination stated that this was a denomination, and denominations are normally kept.  Also, congrats to User:No such user for article improvements.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Unscintillating, including complimenting User:No such user for improving. I rather agree that legitimate denominations deserve a Wikipedia article, but on the other hand anyone can say their tiny splinter church of 3 or 4 persons is a brand new denomination.  It would help if there were some assertion of size, and IMHO there should be some minimum size for a denomination to be deemed legitimate as a denomination deserving Wikipedia coverage.  Here i see neither assertion of big size nor assertion of tiny size, so i would err on side of keeping for now, pending evidence that it is tiny. -- do  ncr  am  01:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This appears to be a denomination, not merely a local congregation. I have no idea of how significant it is, but it does not read to me as if it is all that small.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for weighing in. I would like to remove the deletion tag as many improvements have been made to the article since first being tagged. I appreciate the contributions and views of other editors. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2014 (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.