Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination)

Many of the editors involved in this AfD are listed on Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong: I ask that the closing admin carefully consider their votes in this context. This is not a statement on the editors themselves, but rather a concern that their involvement with the Falun Gong article may introduce biases into their judgments on this AfD. nneonneo talk 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Asdfg12345
 * HappyInGeneral
 * Dilip rajeev (blocked repeatedly for 3RR on Falun Gong)
 * PCPP


 * I'd just look at the argument put forward and disregard where it came from. I carefully considered my thoughts on this, I did not blindly support the page. The main reason is that this organisation continues to be behind major human rights events which make big news and have global impact. I think this is evidenced in the torch relay and with the organ harvesting report, and if it weren't for these things I would not have put forward my opinion to keep the page. --Asdfg12345 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would declare an interest too, as someone with extensive edit history of FG articles. However, I would say in mitigation that, unlike the editors named above, I have some 12,000 mainspace edits under my belt since December 2005, many for articles completely unrelated to Falun Gong. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. As an uninvovled party whose never contributed to any China-related material, I also noticed that there has been some recent canvassing of this discussion which would probably not be representative of Wikipedia as a whole. I have no problem with people informing other editors, and I will not say who did this--and they did not tell the people canvassed to support or oppose; but they clearly share the same viewpoints from their edit histories. This may have to go before the COI noticeboard. MrPrada (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to one of the users listed above, yes: I am aware of this, having read the talk pages of many of the involved users, though it appears he has also notified people on the "other side" of the debate. I'm not one to go to the noticeboards for this kind of thing, but if you think it is warranted, you have my support. nneonneo talk 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm going to go ahead with it. I don't think the editor has done anything wrong, but I don't feel the debate is representative of Wikipedia as a whole, either. It would be good to get some comment from neutral parties who've never edited the subject before. I might change my kind from keep to delete, but right now I can't make heads of tails of the discussion with lingering questions. MrPrada (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)