Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filipino-American Christian Church
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 of the debate was delete. The arguments here for deletion focus primarily on notability, and the rewrite hasn't provided any new assertions of that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable church, the writing is of questionable neutrality and quality, and it's copied and pasted from the organization's website. [1] -Sean Hayford O'Leary 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable church. Only 272 Google results [2]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ORG. Big time copyvio, but not a speedy candidate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If its a "big time" copvio then wouldnt it meet CSD? I've seen an article deleted because of copvio very very fast. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the article has been around here for more than 48 hours, thus it does not fall under the CSD A8 criteria--TBCTaLk?!? 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If its a "big time" copvio then wouldnt it meet CSD? I've seen an article deleted because of copvio very very fast. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable and writing is heavily non-neutral, mere copy. SM247My Talk 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep PAge has been changed where there is nothing from the website. Sanny OlojanMy Talk 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is no longer a copy violation and is more neutral, but it's still not especially high-quality. I also find it suspicious that this article has only been edited by one person since it was started two months ago and now another user appears out of the blue and completely rewrites it. Moreover, the original maintainer of the article hasn't touched it. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I withdraw my above accusation of sock puppetry. I'm still not satisfied that the article should remain on Wikipedia, though. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is no longer a copy violation and is more neutral, but it's still not especially high-quality. I also find it suspicious that this article has only been edited by one person since it was started two months ago and now another user appears out of the blue and completely rewrites it. Moreover, the original maintainer of the article hasn't touched it. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As you can see from the article the page has been redone. Still it may need a little work on it, I still think the page shoud stay on wikipedia. --Timothy Chavis 17:40, 5 July 2006 (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.