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. Deletion is not the answer to the problems.Bduke (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIPFG[edit]

CIPFG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable group founded by Falun Gong. A google search finds only 90,300 results, mostly from Falun Gong associated websites.--PCPP (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:V and WP:RS per [1], [2], [3]. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Suspected bad faith nom looking at the editor's edit history - multiple independent sources. The organization is an international one with highly influential leaders. --Strothra (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The issues discussed are already covered in the various FLG articles, ie Falun Gong, Persecution of Falun Gong, Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. --PCPP (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable with reliable sources. Not that it out-and-out proves anything, but nominator has a history of anti-Falun Gong edits. Lankiveil (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• My edits or views on FLG is irrelevant. The org fails the google test. [4], and your news sources covers Falun Gong, not CIPFG. Clear Wisdom and Epoch Times are themselves Falun Gong sponsored organizations.--PCPP (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources: Taipei Times, news.com.au published by News Limited, Strategic Forecasting, and the New Zealand Herald. Further, the google test is a very weak standard for inclusion. The organization meets the standards set by WP:NN. Further, the organization itself and its work are indepdent of the Falun Gong. David Kilgour, David Matas, and its Canadian leader Rabbi Reuven Bulka are all human rights activists who are not Falun Gong practitioners. Sources associated with Falun Gong (mind you, you have not even demonstrated that they are run by the Falun Gong) in this case are thus secondary sources. --Strothra (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note it seems that the nom might be canvassing [5]. While this may be a friendly notice, I remind the nom that such behavior should not be continued per WP:CANVASS. It's one thing to give people a friendly reminder concerning an ongoing discussion, but to state your opinion on it while doing so is another thing. --Strothra (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hardly find there's anything wrong with someone who drops in to talk to me from time to time.... Furthermore, the only person he appears to have "canvassed" is yours truly. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me how does CIPFG meets WP:Notability. Does CIPFG contain long term notability, or is just some current and temporary event? Does the coverage contain in-depth sources, rather than copy-and-paste?

The CIPFG is an internationally based organization with highly influential and well-respected leaders from multiple countries. It clearly meets WP:NN.--Strothra (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DISPUTE - "clearly"? Please cite some non-FLG source on CIPFG's international status. Here's a Canadian foreign policy weekly that questions CIPFG. Please note CIPFG's president John Jaw is a FLG disciple, and has admitted CIPFG's FLG association. Also note it's time of establishment in 2006 coinciding with FLG publication Epoch Times NY's now discredited "Sujiatun/Auschwitz" story.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absurd line of reasoning. If the head of Human Rights Watch is Catholic, this does not mean that the entire organization is also Catholic or biased toward Catholic countries/peoples.--Strothra (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the above article cited said:

"The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word."

"CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa"

This article from an established news source contradicts your unsourced claim.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See [6] for Epoch Times's links with FLG, thus failing WP:RS. This has been clarified by Li Hongzhi, FLG's master himself [7]. And the supposed third-party sources simply reprinted CIPFG's statements, and is considered one coverage for the purpose. Concentration only in English and removing the sources that fails WP:RS on google [8], the term CIPFG concludes with 13,600, mostly a bunch of blogs.--PCPP (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing links to the Epoch Times and other sources you consider to be associated with the Falun Gong. The CIPFG is an international organization whose leaders are human rights activists - not members of the Falun Gong. Even if these sources were associated with the FG they are still reliable for the purposes of this article. Your last edits to the article purposefully removed legit sources such as the New Zealand Herald in order to craft the article in such a way that fits your POV. Please cease such disruptive editing per WP:POINT. --Strothra (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination seems to be in bad faith. StaticElectric (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Keep, per StaticElectric. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times are other FLG sources fails WP:RS for this matter, especially considering that the organization itself is founded by the Falun Dafa Association[9]. The president John Jaw is a FLG member, and just because some well know people are members of the group doesn't qualify the group as notable. You might as well create an article on Reuven Bulka's local book club if he's a member. The organization is only notable for one event ie anti-PRC protests based on the earlier mentioned organ harvesting allegations, and lacks long time notability. Past organizations FLG founded also include the disfunct Bring Jiang to Justice [10], Resign from the CCP [11], amongst others, so why not create a separate article for every FLG action and organizations? According to WP:NOT#NEWS " Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right...Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--PCPP (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello? This page has always been a stub linked to Falun Gong, with the organization's activities already mentioned there. Recreation of the separate article is nothing but repetition of statements already mentioned in the series of Falun Gong articles.--PCPP (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be pertinent to determine if anything could be merged first? Perhaps that would be more appropriate. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the organization's activities are mentioned in another article does not mean the the organization does not merit its own article. Many corporations and organizations are inherently notable particularly international ones. --Strothra (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per Strothra, StaticElectric. This deletion of sourced content on the CIPFG page as "unnecessary", in particular is problematic and unfortunately, representative of the editing style of this user generally.--Asdfg12345 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but there are no non-trivial mentions of the organisation cited anywhere, and the external links in the article are to self-published sources. This source, where CIPFG is trivially mentioned, states that it is "a little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C. [which has so far] recruited five permanent academics and more than 20 professors, lawyers and priests in Australia" Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a front organisation of Falun Gong and not independent of it in any way, nor does it pass WP:ORG. The namespace should be redirected there if not deleted. The organisation is not notable in its own right as all mentions of it are usually always in the same breath as Falun Gong and secondary to it. All mentions pointed to it above so far are trivial mentions. Furthermore, there seem to be a Falun Gong practitioners who active in wikipedia creating articles, or otherwise adding material blatantly of a propagandistic nature into other articles sourced from the Epoch Times (which incidentally is committed to the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party) in order to create a Walled garden of Falun Gong related articles and make a WP:POINT about their allegations of persecution, torture, organ harvesting and other human rights abuses by the Chinese regime. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising that a support of delete comes from the individual that was WP:CANVASS. Seems interesting. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting one friendly notice does not amount to Canvassing. You seem to add nothing but ad hominem attacks.--PCPP (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, look up Ad-hominem for proper usage. You seem to consistently engage in POV pushing via the removal of cited information in an article that is currently undergoing AfD. I suggest you stop. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China . Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am sorry to say I also get the strongest impression of a bad faith nom. Greswik (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (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.