Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination)

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. Editorial actions such as moves can be discussed elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic views on Falun Gong

~~This page really has no purpose. It is covered sufficiently by Falun Gong articles elsewhere. Even the authors of this article agree with deletion.~~ Edward130603 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meta-article. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back or Keep per Power.corrupts in the previous discussion. This certainly needs a lot of rewriting and restoration - I find it disquieting that the person who first nominated the article for deletion removed almost 80% of the material within one week after the nomination failed with vague comments like "no good", and now the page is about 10% of its previous length, thanks to the same person. However, having reviewed the version the previous AfD discussion addressed, [1], I don't think it's AfD material. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Criticism of Falun Gong. That was originally the title but a group of FLG POV-pushing editors insisted on renaming it "Academic Views". Same happened with "Supression of Falun Gong", which was renamed "Persecution of Falun Gong". In any case there is a strong sensitivity within the FLG community whenever words like "Criticism" and "controversy" are used and there are quite a few documented sections on the talk pages about the use of those words. Note its archives Talk:Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong/Archive_1 for more info. BEAR IN MIND that the history of that very page has once contained a very good range of critical analysis on Falun Gong. If we delete it, it would be impossible to access that history for the average user. So please, if it's deleted, we have to archive some of the history on that page. Remember originally the article was titled "Criticism of Falun Gong" and users had an issue with this, and only after it moved did the blanking of criticism continue. Colipon+(T) 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unfortunately unable to give User:asdfg12345 the benefit of the doubt here that he wants the article deleted in good faith, as Tim Song pointed out. I think it is more likely that a group of editors want to hide revisions like this one to remove evidence of well-sourced critiques of Falun Gong. Colipon+(T)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Move to Criticism of Falun Gong-I was the one who nominated the article for deletion this time. However, after listening to the arguments of Tim Song and Colipon, I think we should keep the article and review the edits that have been made to it in the past.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely do not move to "Criticism of Falun Gong" as it reduces the amount of POVs that can be used. No other opinion. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that Views on Falun Gong or Reception of Falun Gong would be a better alternative? You can check out the archive that Colipon has posted and see the original content of this page.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe we should await the resolution at Talk:Falun Gong before doing anything to this article? Colipon+(T) 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No Action until moderation comes to this article. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a rename request. Otherwise I'm neutral to deleting or keeping. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; absolutely do not move to "Criticism of Falun Gong". I agree with Sceptre. We don't want a POV fork that would only invite WP:UNDUE. All Falun Gong related articles should be based on academic views to begin with. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move In general, I support the renaming although there is considerable redundancy. It is about time we stopped FG activists using euphemisms (academic views) and strongly emotional terms (persecution) when it suits. Academics are on the whole neutral or are FG apologists, so having this title imparts an obvious bias, and avoids addressing the real criticisms of FG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (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.