True Jesus Church ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

the original deletion proposer's accusations are now responded as follows:

Deletion proposer's argument 1: "per cross-wiki spam effort."

Reply:
1. The word spam is subjective and not every Wikipedia user would regard a certain topic or action as 'spam'. The article was written for the purpose of informing the readers and not to 'advertise' for monetary gain. There are over 4,500,000 articles on English Wikipedia and readers always have the discretion to view other articles of interest.
2. There are also numerous other articles which have cross-wiki presence created by other users but this does not justify the deletion of their English Wikipedia article.

Deletion proposer's argument 2: "per local notability policy"
Reply: If (i) 100% of the church members reside in China, (ii) the church had no English name, (iii) China has blocked all trade and interaction with the West, and (iv) There are no Caucasian or non-Chinese members of the church then the proposer's argument could be taken into consideration. Nevertheless this is not the case today.

Deletion proposer's argument 3: "this doesn't have reliable, third party sources; it's citations are to bible passages and internal publications.,"

Reply: External non-TJC sources have now been added as references and the internal TJC sources are no longer used as the primary source of verification.

Deletion proposer's argument 4: "some sections in particular, more as a recruiting document than an encyclopedia article."

Reply: The introductory part of the article has been rewritten and no part of the article sounds like a recruiting document now.

The article is not substantially identical to the content of the article deleted after debate, and the changes in the content have now addressed many of the reasons for which the material was previously deleted. Jose77 ( talk) 08:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Status: The current article in mainspace was deleted by G4 and subsequently reinserted. As I understand it, the appeal here is a request to let it stay, and prevent another G4. If we decide to here to let it stay, it still would not prevent another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment' The articles is sufficiently changed that the objection as promotional no longer applies; the statement of beliefs is similar to most other articles on similar churches; the key points that define the definition. . DGG ( talk ) 12:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• The independent sources are largely paper. Does anyone have easy access to them? If the claims in the article are true, this seems like something that A) we should have and B) meets the GNG. Hobit ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply