Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelize China Fellowship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 JoshuaZ 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evangelize China Fellowship[edit]
- Evangelize China Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not sure about notability, seems to be promotional, no sources or references. SamBC(talk) 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The search engine results does not reveal any reliable sources independent on church websites. Had they started some controversies or whatnot, they ought to have some newspaper mention.--Alasdair 02:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The organization appears to be legit. Definitely the author needs to expound on the article and furnish references as to why ECF is notable. But deleting is premature when marking it as a stub is sufficient. Tendancer 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's a stub, it still has to be notable and verifiable. Nothing in the article seems to indicate notability. SamBC(talk) 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created today. For goodness, how about giving the author a chance to prove notability. If it's still a two-sentences article in a month, I'd be all for deletion. To nominate an article two hours after it was created before the author has a chance to prove his/her case, however, is against the instructions clearly spelled out at WP:AFD. The correct action is to tag for references and contact the author, not jump on it. Tendancer 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not say "don't list it", it says to consider carefully before listing it. It seems a lack of good faith to assume that I did not. It is very easy to create a stub, on first edit, that meats all policies and guidelines. Further, AfDs don't work very quickly, and any changes between now and closure of the AfD will be reflected in the outcome. SamBC(talk) 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, keep in mind this article was 2 hours old when you nominated it for deletion. The text from WP:AFD states
- That does not say "don't list it", it says to consider carefully before listing it. It seems a lack of good faith to assume that I did not. It is very easy to create a stub, on first edit, that meats all policies and guidelines. Further, AfDs don't work very quickly, and any changes between now and closure of the AfD will be reflected in the outcome. SamBC(talk) 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created today. For goodness, how about giving the author a chance to prove notability. If it's still a two-sentences article in a month, I'd be all for deletion. To nominate an article two hours after it was created before the author has a chance to prove his/her case, however, is against the instructions clearly spelled out at WP:AFD. The correct action is to tag for references and contact the author, not jump on it. Tendancer 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's a stub, it still has to be notable and verifiable. Nothing in the article seems to indicate notability. SamBC(talk) 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
- Have you tried to e.g. contact the author first and ask him/her to please expound on the content? That would be truly in spirit WP:AGF rather than assume he/she was trying to evangelize/promote something on wiki--for all I know maybe it is an attempt to evangelize on wiki, but I also know I can't pass that judgment after 2 hours. Tendancer 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I can't judge that, hence the fact that it's brought here for wider discussion and review. Nominating for AfD does not prejudice against it being kept. SamBC(talk) 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to note a quick google search retrieved numerous articles on ECF's founder: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=andrew+gih&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8. He's mentioned in a couple articles on wiki, including this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMF_International which looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMF_International&oldid=23369298 after 2 hours. Nominating for Afd def *shouldn't* prejudice against it being kept, but it does and I think in this case the author def should've been given a lot more time than 2 hrs. That's just not what WP:AFD is for. Tendancer 03:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I can't judge that, hence the fact that it's brought here for wider discussion and review. Nominating for AfD does not prejudice against it being kept. SamBC(talk) 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've somewhat expanded the article. The ECF is 60 years old, multinational, and zh.wikipedia.org has an article on the founder (we don't). The organization has minimal online presence in English; probably even more online presence in Chinese, given that every English page I found had a Chinese version, but not vice versa. From a 1980s California Court case I could determine that there are several different legal organizations with named beginning ECF; incluing ECF Inc. and ECF Hong Kong (who were the two parties to that case.) GRBerry 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not taking sides on the org or the founder notability. However I'm not too sure how encyclopaedic one can say the zh article is. All that article is a bullet point list of biography details (e.g. born here, went study here, did this here, die here). KTC 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- GRBerry 03:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article as it currently exists. The fact that a topic has poor English net presence doesn't mean it isn't notable. Currently, if claims made in article can be verified regarding the various entities the group has founded, it certainly qualifies as notable. John Carter 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources conferring significant coverage are found. As of now, there's just trivial mentions + directory info Corpx 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this seems like it could be a valid article with some more work. It seems a little difficult to separate the founder from the group; some expansion on the group or a merge into the individual may be alternatives. I did a dogpile and got 79 hits in English speaking sources. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of any notability.--SefringleTalk 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see how it's promotional, and it also it could be used by those researching Christianity in China. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.