Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puyi 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 of the debate was no consesnsus. -R. fiend 14:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Puyi Church

Tagged, untagged, retagged... and ultimately got lost in a fD-limbo. no vote. Nabla 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Bubamara 18:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be a demonination, not a building. CalJW 14:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified and notability is established. -- Kjkolb 02:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, religious denomination, already survived a vfd. Kappa 15:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, [Puyi] are a people of varied beliefs. The Puyi Church as it were is merely the Christian missions among them. --OGRastamon 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• This ancient afd nomination was again orphaned improperly, this time by Alhutch (talk · contribs) [1]. Relisting now. Will be irate if it needs to be done again. —Cryptic (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawang churches. Uncle G 14:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not establish notability. Denni☯ 01:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with above. Dottore So 06:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the precedent given by Uncle G. Also, I'm not sure about process when the same V/AfD (and this same discussion has survived long enough actively to be both) spans July-October. Xoloz 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and expand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa PMLF 23:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Had it not been for the previous listing cited by Uncle G, this would have been a tough call. There's just the barest mention on Google of this (in fact, the only real citation I found was the same one cited at [2] by User:Kappa). Yet, that's enough to pass the verifiability test (if only by the skin of its teeth). But, as several above have pointed out, this has already survived the process once. Unless somebody can demonstrate what has changed between the first AfD and this one, I say there's no reason to rehash the subject. Not every decision is perfect, but let it go and move on to something else. There is no doubt the article needs improving, however. --RoySmith 00:13, 9 October 2005 (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.