Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Independent 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --Parker007 00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Independent Church

Philippine Independent Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Delete - I first used the "Prod" tag which was removed. The reason I believe this should be deleted is: Wikipedia:No_original_research & does NOT include Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for WP:Verifiability of content. Parker007 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep - I haven't seen this article before, but I have no doubt that its a very notable article. The church is referenced in Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia, InfoPlease.com, Answers.com, and a search on the Library of Congress catalog reveals 3 materials about this subject. It's appears to be an important subject. I suggest placing one of the available "cleanup" tags instead of deleting since this article can be saved with some editing. As WP:DELETE states, "Articles and text which are capable of meeting [relevant content criteria] should usually be remedied by editing." Luis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It fails Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, & WP:Verifiability. --Parker007 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That, in and of itself, does not render this article subject to deletion under WP:DELETE. I suggest reading that policy in its entirety. As I quoted above, the policy says that an article should not be deleted if it can be saved by editing. Since I've already cited multiple reliable and independent secondary sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, materials in the Library of Congress catalog), it's obvious that someone can easily edit the article to incorporate the information from those sources. We must keep in mind that when we are considering articles for deletion, we should not only consider the state of the article as it stands now, but how it can be reasonably improved in the future. I'd also hate to think that a subject that both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia found important enough to devote space in their encyclopedias would be missing in Wikipedia. Luis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What about improving Encyclopedia via the rule WP:IAR? You want to comment? --Parker007 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article needs a lot of work, and citations for its facts, but it is a notable and deserves an article. Even if a lot of it needs to be removed to meet Original Research rules, the article itself should be kept.GhostPirate 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I added a cite to Business Week and a review from Journal of Asian Studies of volume 3 of a 3 volume series of scholarly documentation on the church. This satisfies WP:V and WP:ATT and its influence as a national church denomination satisfies WP:ORG. Content problems or POV issues with an article about a notable subject such as this can be addressed by the normal editing process, rather than by deletion. Edison 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a case where issues like WP:OR and WP:CITE are signs that an article needs improvement, but not deletion. A little bit of poking around shows that this easily passes WP:CONG, and I don't see a problem with verifiability, either. It's just a matter of helping the article to meet Wikipedia standards - not that it cannot meet them. This is definitely a case of content issues but not deletion worthy. Arkyan 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that WP:CONG is outdated, try NOT to use it again. :). peace. --Parker007 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Religious denominations (as opposed to individual congregations) are generally inherently notable, and this particular denomination claims 2 million-plus members. I can't imagine how it could fail WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a rush to close this debate? What about the merge tag? There has been no discussion whatsoever regarding that! Any comments? --Parker007 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regarding the suggested merge of the article Aglipayanism into this one, there isn't any information that article gives that is not covered in better detail than this one. Should it survive the deletion process, Aglipayanism should simply redirect here. Arkyan 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why on earth is this original research? Suggest nominator reads definition of OR before next nomination - failure to cite sources is not original research as is quite clearly stated on WP:ATT: "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source", "Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source". Big difference. -- Necrothesp 00:50, 3 March 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.