Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Missionary Society

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Missionary Society

Not sure if this is encyclopedic ? Also the article's author seems to have a conflict of interest, as his username is the same as one of the websites listed at the bottom ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Ruthlessly Rewrite Fails WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Needs considerable improvement, possibly start from scratch.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is horrendous and needs to be rewritten using proper third-party sources, the organization itself is clearly notable as demonstrated by a quick Google or Google book search. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a denomination, but if it does, denominations are generally considered notable. —BradV 04:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A missionary society from a major denomination should merit an article, especially one that's been around for almost a hundred years. Obviously, this article needs improvement, but it hasn't even been around fror two days. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable topic - but it does need rescue - or to be stubbified at the very least. Springnuts (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly a significnat topic. It appears to be a dissenting Seventh Day Adventist denomination, rather than strictly a missionary society, but it has existed for nearly a century, and in a number of countries. Certainly notable; despite any COI or other issues, it should be retained. Note: I have just wikified it (a little). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 30 November 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.