The result was keep. The consensus is clear but I must say I'm surprised at the result. The article has only one source (both current ext. links in the article are to the same story) which seems barely removed from a press release. Much of the content of that source is not actually about the organization but about different events and background on Taoism generally. All quotes are from affiliated members and founders of the association. If this was a USA association, I would categorize my perception of the source content as soft PR fluff. But that's just me and I'm just the AfD closer. Pigman ☿ 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a recently founded association on China. We should wait until it does something notable. Damiens.rf 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Response Point taken. My view on keeping it: Because the Communist Chinese rarely, if ever, go out of their way to allow the creation of religious organizations. As for "independent" sources -- hey, we're talking China! Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The consensus is clear but I must say I'm surprised at the result. The article has only one source (both current ext. links in the article are to the same story) which seems barely removed from a press release. Much of the content of that source is not actually about the organization but about different events and background on Taoism generally. All quotes are from affiliated members and founders of the association. If this was a USA association, I would categorize my perception of the source content as soft PR fluff. But that's just me and I'm just the AfD closer. Pigman ☿ 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a recently founded association on China. We should wait until it does something notable. Damiens.rf 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Response Point taken. My view on keeping it: Because the Communist Chinese rarely, if ever, go out of their way to allow the creation of religious organizations. As for "independent" sources -- hey, we're talking China! Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply