Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South China 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

South China Church
Wikipedia should not be used to push propaganda. It is tragic if what is happening is verifiable but Wikipedia is a grounds for propaganda152.163.100.10
 * Delete for above reasons 152.163.100.10
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Abstrakt 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Change to a redirect to Gong Shengliang. -- ran (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A religious group with 50,000 members (see external link) would have been considered notable if it had been centered in Ohio. It is just as notable when it happens to be active in China. Se also this page on the website of Freedom House. Uppland 10:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This seems to be in least somewhat noteworthy and there are apparently credible sources verifying it. Even adjusting for population size 50,000 is fairly good sized. Although I think it needs more references and some clarity. Other possibility is merge it with whatever article we have on Christians being persecuted in China--T. Anthony 13:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments only, no vote: the contents require elaboration. I think presenting facts are not propoganda.--Bhadani 14:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uppland, real religious movement. Contents are not propaganda. Kappa 15:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please how is this propaganda that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 17:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep expand and cleanup. Notable church in China. If there are NPOV problems with the article, which I fail to see btw, there are other ways to address this other than deletion. This is yet another nomination by an unregistered editor. It would be interesting to see where 152.163.100.10 is from and whether it has any connection with the Chinese Government. I think it is time for a rethink of allowing non-registered users to nominate articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 18:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 152.163.100.10 is an AOL proxy. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable church in the PRC.--Nicodemus75 18:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. But in need of a re-write and some research.  Colin99 11:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
 * Keep Per Uppland --Rogerd 03:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand --Kewp (t) 06:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, and improve. There is no propaganda.  Logophile 15:22, 10 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.