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 No consensus, article referencing improved during AfD, but still of borderline notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dafoh[edit]

Dafoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable organization. Speedy was declined, however, this article contains large amounts of WP:OR and is unsourced. TN‑X-Man 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. They have received some minor press mentions, but they aren't really looking notable to me. If it is kept, it is going to need some cleanup. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning towards keep. I added some refs but the article needs work. Given it is 1.5 hours old lets see how it improves during the AFD. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No problem. I've corrected a couple of the internal links and fixed the external links so they display the URL instead of a number. TN‑X-Man 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a bad article, but this isn't "clean up," it's deletion. They're notable, even China can't ignore them. --Blechnic (talk) 03:00, 11 June 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.