Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Adventist Church of Tonga


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Only delete vote struck. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh Day Adventist Church of Tonga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is ostensibly trivia regarding observance of the sabbath relative to the International Date Line. Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I know a LOT about this specific issue and this article is pretty much an attack job and utter nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep With the dramatic improvements this article is fantastic. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot of reliable sources are available, if one simply Googles the title for news and books. Adding "ethnography OR anthropology OR study OR studies" to the search field eliminates most of the non-scholarly hits. I agree that the present article has problems, but those should be addressed by editing - e.g.(reduction to a stub) - rather than deletion. is a 09:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? The 'Google test'? For a start, that's not a reliable method for determining notability. Secondly, the most prominent results are from SDA sites, which are primary sources and not sufficient to establish notability. It is not sufficient for sources simply to indicate that there are SDAs in Tonga to warrant an article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Did you add the string I suggested? Do you have a history of Googling SDA sites that skewed your results? is a 10:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. And no (were you hoping I did?). I didn't notice any stand-out sites that appear especially suitable.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You could not find 2 academic sources from Google? Wow!
 * Bibliographies (also a chapter in ). Discussions in . Update: Another bibliography
 * You seem to have a lot of anti-religion stuff on your user page. Could you point to an AfD discussion where you wanted to keep an article on a new religious movement? is a 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Three userboxes about atheism among several dozen userboxes unrelated to religion is hardly "a lot of anti-religion stuff", but nice ad hominem.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The links you posted don't indicate anything more than passing mention of SDAs in Tonga. Only one is specifically about SDAs in the Pacific; the other two aren't specifically about religion at all.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So now you wish to change your vote from "delete" to merge/rename to "SDA in the Pacific"? is a 11:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said anything remotely like that.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The usable content is already present at Religion in Tonga; I have no objection to redirecting to that article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator should read WP:BEFORE. A quick search shows various books and articles that discuss the subject in some depth, for example
 * and
 * The subject is clearly notable, regardless of the quality of the article as it stands. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources is specifically about SDAs in Tonga. The first is certainly a suitable sources for Religion in Tonga; the available abstract on which the claim about the second source is based mentions Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Rarotonga (part of the Cook Islands), Tuvalu and Vanuatu, but does not mention Tonga.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Steley discusses the Adventist Koe Babitaiso (Tongan language pamphlet) and Talafekau Mooni (Tongan language monthly magazine). Others sources would include, , , , and so on. Much has been written about the Adventists in Tonga, as one would expect. The nominator would be better employed expanding the article from the many available sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All good sources for Religion in Tonga.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * may we take it that you plan to expand Religion in Tonga? Or Adventist Mission? Or both? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the closing administrator can see what is happening. Perhaps other editors will look at this discussion or the article and try to help. is a 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aymatth2, you're welcome to assume anything you like. I nominated the article on reasonable grounds. If the decision is to delete (redirect), then that would be consistent with the notability of the subject matter. If the decision is to keep, I don't agree with the rationale, but it's ultimately fine too.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that means "no", so I may expand this article without duplicating your research. For clarity, are you proposing to merge/redirect, retaining the title and article history, or to delete, purging the title completely from Wikpedia. If the former, there is a different process described at Merging. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is very little content in this article, and at the time the nomination was raised, it was just a coatrack for expressing a POV. Now, it's even less. It's not clear why the article in its current form or at the time of nomination would be a candidate for merging. It would do no harm to delete it, but I have no objection to redirecting. However, if the result of your objections is that the article is kept, it would certainly be best if you improve the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I again advise you to read WP:BEFORE, then withdraw this nomination. The minimum searches clearly show the potential. The current status of the article is irrelevant. If it can be fixed through normal editing it is not a candidate for AfD. Deletion does harm, since it raises a red flag for any editor considering recreating the article, and thus discourages growth of the encyclopedia. If it is a valid encyclopedic topic, the article should not be deleted. You may yourself consider improving the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that the topic is so notable as to warrant an article separate to Religion in Tonga and other articles already covering Adventism. If others disagree, that's fine, but I see no reason to withdraw the nomination of an article that has existed for 6 years only as a source of POV trivia about the Sabbath.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your recent improvements to the article, although this could still be condensed to three paragraphs at Religion in Tonga. It seems to be fleshed out with some details that are trivial (e.g. a nurse helping to deliver a child has nothing to do with their religion) or out scope (e.g. irrelevant detail about Pitcairn Islands).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your recent improvements to the article, although this could still be condensed to three paragraphs at Religion in Tonga. It seems to be fleshed out with some details that are trivial (e.g. a nurse helping to deliver a child has nothing to do with their religion) or out scope (e.g. irrelevant detail about Pitcairn Islands).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn - signficant improvements have been made, and there is clear consensus to keep.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (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.