Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, relies too much on primary sources and original research (which includes citations that are mostly prescriptive/dogmatic rather than descriptive of the subject matter). In addition, based on the talk page, its primary editors have a close personal involvement to the subject of the article (Fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and qualifies as WP:PROMOTION).

Delete. Article written as WP:PROMO. Appears to be a case of WP:COI and based mainly on primary sources. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The denomination's founding was reported in the US.[1] St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but must be cleaned up of any POV/OR (which I will work on). It essentially describes a denomination which exists in the Philippines and has no other immediately related-articles. Quis separabit? 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a denomination, where we certainly need an article, and it is not so bad that we need to start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (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.