Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puyi Church (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Majorly (Talk) 13:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puyi Church[edit]

Non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley ^Talk 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the ~~second~~ third deletion debate for this church. The ~~first~~ second is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Puyi Church. The first was part of a group nom, and is linked from the second. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:CHURCH doesn't appear to apply because this doesn't look like a local church (which I take to mean a single congregation). Abstain for now. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources added in the year and a half since the last deletion proposal indicates to me that either there are none to be had, making this unverifiable, or there's nobody interested in writing the article, making this unexpandable. Shimeru 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge somewhere) this isn't a local church, it is a denomination, and as was already pointed out int he previous discussion, it is listed on the worldchristiandatabase as such [1]--Sandy Scott 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. doesn't seems like this article will be anything more than a stub. Abstrakt 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is surprising the amount of info that can be found on things like these if one digs hard enough. Take a look at this diff, one one such denomination I've been working on occasionally for a few months. I don't think we currently have a project devoted to complete coverage of all Christian denomination. Denominations are almost always kept, and I don't see any reason to eliminate this stub. GRBerry 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to know what has changed from the last (failed) AfD until now to make this worthy of re-nomination. Pastordavid 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my automatic reaction per WP:V on seeing an article that cites zero sources for more than a year now Sandstein 21:25, 22 December 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.