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 redirect to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting as POV fork. Not deleted outright to give people the opportunity to merge useable content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvesting of Organs from Falun Gong Prisoners[edit]

Harvesting of Organs from Falun Gong Prisoners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I came across this while looking through some uncategorized articles. It's hopelessly and irrevocably mired in an anti-PRC, pro-Falun Gong POV mess. This article also contains original research and written like an essay or a political pamphlet. It it unfit for an encyclopedia and needs to be deleted. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting, which has more sources and active editors (and its own NPOV dispute). Merge seems optional. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Blatant POV fork of the article Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Merge any useful information into Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. This article is a POV fork of the main article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There seems to be some decent, cited information here, but definitely a fork, and the title of the other is better. There is a neutrality dispute on the latter, and the creator of this article is an SPA, making me think it's a sock of one of the people involved in the dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving content disputes. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 April 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.