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, note that deletion is only an acceptable remedy for WP:NPOV problems that cannot be corrected editorially, except in the case of blatant spam, pages created primarily to disparage their subjects, and other special circumstances. John254 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation of Gods and Earths[edit]

The Nation of Gods and Earths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Serious, serious POV issues which I feel probably couldn't be solved by editing the article in its current form. I know a lot of people feel that AfD isn't cleanup, but there are some cases when no article is better than a POV screed. Chardish (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Clearly a notable encylopedia topic. Tag it as POV and discuss fixes on the talk page. If the problem persists there are plenty of routes to take, AFD is not one. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Your comment is the current POV problems are the issue and you don't feel you can edit the article in its current state, then be WP:BOLD and overhaul the whole thing. Removing its history is not required to do this. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps I'm not being clear enough:

1. Wikipedia is not for propaganda/advocacy pieces
2. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"
3. We delete content that does not meet the relevant content criteria; e.g. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV
4. This entire article is more or less a POV propaganda piece

Hence the AfD. - Chardish (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Daniel and Lid. I don't even see what the POV problem is. The article describes the views taught by this organization but I don't see anything in the article that suggests that the writers of this Wikipedia article agree with those views. The article is reasonably well sourced, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I agree with Daniel, Lid, and Metropolitan. there is no POV issue here with this page. If in fact there is please site some of the POV issues and post them so they can be reworded accordingly.--KillerSim187 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Notable subject, failure to specify POV problems. This is not what AfD is for.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep definitely deal with any POV issues. Deleting is not a solution.--jenlight (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination due to obvious consensus to keep. I'm a bit disappointed that no one else saw POV issues with the page, though: I thought they were fairly evident. I might go digging through it later, though. And for the record, deletion is a solution for NPOV pages - AfD isn't just for notability and WP:NOT, contrary to what people think. - Chardish (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2007 (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.