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 delete. I do realize this is an extremely contentious issue and I full well expect to see my decision contested on DRV, but to be honest, I doubt that any closure would survive without being contested in some manner. A review of the several previous deletion debates over this list shows that the community's desire to keep it has clearly been waning and this discussion is certainly following in that pattern. It is obvious that the list suffers numerous issues and many of the arguments for keeping this material are rooted in the claim that these issues warrant cleanup and rewriting rather than deletion. However, several salient arguments have been put forward that these issues are egregious and multiple and that no amount of cleanup will salvage the article. During the course of the debate a number of editors were convinced to change their recommendations from keep to delete, but I don't see that going in reverse. Finally, a number of the keep !votes were, rather than any kind of rationale for keeping the material itself, were calls to close the discussion for what were perceived as procedural violations rather than arguing that the material is inclusion worthy itself. To put it more succinctly, the arguments being made in favor of deletion are stronger than those made for keeping this material. In tandem with the fact that, over time, consensus in each debate seems to be straying from keep and trending closer to delete, I do not feel that closing as "no consensus" will be of any aid except to stave off deletion until the next debate rolls around. Shereth 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults[edit]

List of groups referred to as cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. There has been a lot of recent discussion about whether this page is needed, and it has been a year since the last AfD, so let's put it to a discussion. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Real deletion rationale are being provided by people voting "delete", perhaps this can turn into a real AfD. Merzul (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• : I second this being a "real AfD." The difference between real and false AfD's I don't think is clearly stated anywhere so technically saying "it's a real AfD" is perhaps unnecessary. Although the idea this is somehow a "false AfD" seems strong enough I've said it. I'll say it again I guess, I second/third the nominate of this for deletion.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not enough time left to be a "real AfD". Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think AfD's can be up five days. This has only been two. So I don't see the time problem unless you mean it's going to be closed now.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Important note, the list looked much more reasonable about a year ago (here 05:05, 3 October 2007). The main difficulty seems to be its maintainability, as it is tempting for someone, who finds their group on this list, to try to add many other groups that normally wouldn't be considered as cults. This has lead to this current list that some of us find carelessly constructed. What can be done? Should we Keep / delete / userify / or close and discuss on talk page? Merzul (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul has requested that I change his "about a year ago" link above to what I consider the most encyclopedic version of List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). I'll just edit in the date, since his link is a good later sample of the period when the 1920+ header criterion 4 kept old religions off of the list – so that controversy was minimal on the talk page. An earlier version (here 04:34, 26 January 2007) has less polished notice texts, but it also includes partial governments lists. Milo 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to procedural nomination archived, as enough people have given deletion rationale below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Keep To make it clear where I stand. Darrenhusted (talk) *Neutral to follow the convention. Darrenhusted (talk) Delete as un-encyclopedic, to make this easy. Darrenhusted (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Darren you are making this worse. Now you have provided a rationale for deletion that you don't even believe in yourself. You need to let someone who actually wants this deleted nominate it with a rationale they believe is applicable. No one blames you for your good faith effort here, but its time to realize that it was a mistake and support withdrawing the nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close I believe the talk page is best for discussions about the article that do not directly involve Deleting the article outright. Alternatively, no rationale is provided for deletion. I'm not going to close, as I want more eyes to make sure I'm not insane. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close As I already mentioned on the talk page I'm thoroughly confused about what procedure the nominator is following. I second the speedy close, not because I want to keep this entry (in fact I think its horrible and should get axed) but because if/when it goes to AfD again it does so with a rationale for deletion. This sounds like a request for comment misplaced in an AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] From the article talk page Lists like this are evil, attempt to avoid AfD and this list remains ridiculous. There is clearly a feeling amongst some editors that this page should be deleted. Having read through the full list of WP:DEL I do not see anything that requires the nominator to want a page deleted for them to nominate it (you are free to find the section that says that and post it on my talk page), so here we are with an AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) Darren, I believe you nominated this on good faith, but can I note that two of the three thread titles you mention above are of my own creation. You are basically arguing that I (and those who may agree with my perspective) should have nominated this for deletion but haven't so you will do it for us despite the fact that you do not agree with us and therefore have created an AfD sans any good deletion rational in its nomination. I object on principle and ask for this to be withdrawn until such time that someone actually provides a deletion rationale in the nomination. I'm not sure that this type of nomination violates policy but it certainly goes against convention. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion tells us how to create this page, the discussion page "subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted". Deletion discussions are started from the premise that there is a "reason the page should be deleted". That is the "convention" I referred to above as well.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Precisely. It's not against policy as such, but AFD normally proceeds when a Nominator tags an article and proposes its deletion because it violates policies X, Y, and Z, is unsourceable, or otherwise does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Editors then support or oppose deletion, providing reasoning for both. Most Delete comments agree with or expand the rationale of the nominator. Most Keep comments refute the nominator's contentions in some way, or provide reasons why they are not applicable. After 5 days, an admin reads the debate, weighs the arguments on the merits, and closes the debate as keep, delete, or what-have-you. The problem here is that there is no reason provided to delete, so there is A) nothing for Keep comments to refute, and B) nothing for Delete comments to expand upon or concur with. Thus, there is no meaningful debate possible in the context of a deletion debate. I add that this doesn't look like a bad faith nom - those are usually of the "You want to delete my article, FINE, I'll nom yours too" variety - but it's still hinky. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also note that despite any clear policy language about this it obviously implied that the nominator of an article for deletion actually thinks the article should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Wikipedia is not a list or directory. Is there a list of religions site? Further, one man's "cult" is another man's religions. What goes on the list often reflects one's POV. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article meets none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion, per WP:CSD. It has context - it's clear what the subject is. It has content - it's not gibberish. It's not a copyvio or a purely negative WP:BLP. It's not advertising or a test page. It was not created by a banned user, nor does its only author request its deletion - it probably has hundreds of authors by now. It is in english, and has not been improperly transwikied. So, an argument to delete would have to cite other policies that the article fails to meet. Is it sourceable? Is the subject notable? Is it possible to write a neutral article on the subject? Is the existing article salvageable to this end? The nominator presents none of these arguments, which is why I believe this debate should be closed and discussion on these points be taken to the talk page of the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close or Keep (keep vote moved to relisted AfD below) The regular editors have been in heavy debates, and working hard to propose major changes to this article. There is an RFC currently open which has brought new ideas to the article for debate and implementation, and implementation just began today, precipitating complaints that no one has had a chance to discuss or rectify. There are a bunch of possibly satisfactory solutions in the pipe, if complaining editors can be persuaded (maybe not, but there should be an opportunity to do so). I'm not opposed to good faith AfD nominations, but the proper timing was about three months ago for LOGRTAC's "routine" AfD. Milo 14:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) is useful:

• 1. It's an index useful for further research, and that is the purpose of the article.

• 2. It's a list too long to fit in the associated text article Cult.

• 3. It's useful to the average reader because controversial subjects have high general interest.

• 4. It's useful to laypersons, who participate in cultic studies by to a degree not found in other academic subjects (see Cult). If they don't have graduate student research experience (or even if they do), they may begin by consulting an encyclopedia, and a Google search quickly leads to Wikipedia.

• 5. It's useful to law enforcement officers investigating cult complaints (comparing a local group to their behavior reported elsewhere).

• 6. It's useful to national government employees engaged in legislative, administrative regulation, and cult policy research. See French Report (unofficial translation) and Groups referred to as cults in government documents.

• 7. Group members find it's not useful to them, but I think they grudgingly concede that it's useful to their opponents. Otherwise they wouldn't work so persistently to delete it.

• 8. It's useful to global citizens who are concerned about a group who has moved into their town or neighborhood. Based on USA cult-prevalence statistics (see Cult), roughly 97% of the time they will be reassured by finding no listing for the group locally referred to as a cult. Milo 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So given your points it seems that the rationale to keep this list is to aid the Anti-cult movement in its various endeavors? I don't believe that this is our "purpose" here at Wikipedia. We should not use this list (under the cosy acronym "LOGTRAC") for those purposes because that would mean using Wikipedia to generate information for a lobbying machine. BTW, cult is in a poor state at the moment, and it reads like a compromise between "anti-cultists" and "cult members" instead of a well written objective and scholarly entry. I think this entire area sorely needs the attention of those who have scholarly expertise, and a outside perspective.PelleSmith (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See line 1. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see line 1, but I also see the rest of the lines. Furthermore, in terms of line 1, our entries report facts, as the result of research, they do not provide the basis for "future research". You must be confusing Wikipedia with something quite other than an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"entries ... do not provide the basis for "future research"."

I see you are out of league debate arguments. WP:MADEUP

Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think its our purpose to provide people with partial information so that they can then go about doing future research? Point of fact is that you wish to provide misleading information, but we can leave that one alone. Instead of just insulting me with this "made up" accusation why don't you enlighten us here with some policy, guideline or other available Wiki conventions what support your "for future research" claim. I'll be patiently waiting.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"enlighten us here with some policy, guideline or other available Wiki conventions what support your "for future research" claim."

No need to. It's an axiom of all research, that all research materials lead to further research, ad infinitum. You either accept this or you're not a scholar. Since you claim to be a scholar, you either have to accept this axiom or launch into tendentious debating – by which you would also lose your scholar's credibility. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total and utter BS. Encyclopedias are not "research materials" meant to lead to "further research". Not only is that nonsense in the academy its completely against the very principles of this Wikipedia--you may be familiar with WP:NOR, the principle of which being that we seek to report the results of research as reliably as possible, not to create our own. BTW, I'll take my cues about what it means to be a "scholar" from somewhere else, thank you much.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going line by line when it comes to 1 and 2 List of new religious movements and destructive cult could serve some of this. Not that all or most new religions are cults, but information could be added to the list on those groups that have faced consistent cult allegations. On line five we have List of convicted religious leaders, I created it although I somewhat regret doing so, which deals with some of the legally suspect groups. Some of the others sound a bit paranoid, even if it's a paranoia I respect.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - criteria is so wide that it makes this nothing but an indiscriminate list of organizations. Some of the entries like Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Judaism, Mormonism, Protestantism, Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Wikipedia, and Youth With A Mission are all not cults to list them as if they were takes away all creditability and usefulness away from the list. Furthermore these are just the ones I am familiar with, I am sure that there are many more that don't apply as well. Unless the list is cut down to a more reasonable list of organizations it has no place in this encyclopedia. --T-rex 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment (2 e/cs w/revert and thread mess to clean up) You're being taken in by a cunning AfD jam-scheme spearheaded by a tendentious and now-banned user. He and other listed members of modern groups figured that if major religions were readded to the list, editors like you who didn't know about his scheme would demand deletion - and sure enough here you are. From Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 there were fewer complaints because the list was scientifically restricted by the 1920+ rule (per UCSB cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton), to groups founded after the modern meanings of cult began appearing in 1920. Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Judaism, Mormonism, Protestantism and other old religions weren't on the list. Instead of complaining and polling delete because of unscientific trickery, how about joining the centrist editors in consensing a restoration of the 1920+ rule criterion? Milo 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually think that deletion is the better option --T-rex 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free not to answer, but it would be helpful to know if you are a philosophical opponent who might be convinced by the evidence, or if you are a post 1920-founded group member who will never accept anything but deletion. Milo 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand your question. However I do have a problem with the 1920 rule. There is no reason to believe that cults didn't exsist before 1920, and it would still fail to remove groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Wikipedia, and Youth With A Mission which really fall outside the title of "cult". --T-rex 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "no reason to believe that cults didn't exist before 1920" Perhaps you mean that you could personally decide that some group before 1920 practiced mind-control? That's not only original research, it's historic revisionism, which I assume that you aren't professionally qualified to practice. Only "cultus", positive connotation "cults of veneration", existed by definition before 1920. According to prolific Britannica and cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB, the modern scientific use of c-u-l-t began in the 1920s-1930s, ('sociological cult') being the first junior homonym, with six or more appearing later (see Cult). "still fail to remove groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Wikipedia, and Youth With A Mission" According to early LOGRTAC editor Wjhonson (20:09, 24 January 2008) previous commenters criticized LOGRTAC editors for making judgments as to who was a cult: "The article has a mechanical approach now, not a judgemental one". The criteria specifically exclude uninteresting cults with easy-to-spot definitions (like fan-cults), but accepts any other definition of c-u-l-t found in a reliable source – which WP:Avoids undecidable arguments. The Wikipedia reference is always chuckle bait until one actually reads it. Charles Arthur quoted dictionary definitions of "cult" in support of his quite serious opinion ("Log on and join in, but beware the web cults"). You can say you disagree with him, but he's published in a reliable source and you aren't. Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the word "cult" was not used with a particular meaning before 1920 does not mean that cults did not exist before then. The argument boils down to: "The word dinosaur was invented 100 years ago or so. Therefore there were no dinosaurs before then." I don't believe that. Even in my limited research I have come across references that suggest that the early Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mormons, and the Christian Scientists as well as 19th century American Utopian Communities like Oneida, Amana, New Harmony, and the Shakers would be regarded as cults, see for example the US History Encyclopedia on answers.com. John Campbell (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Those names you mention might become regarded as cults if an expert in both cults and history wrote a scientific paper of historic revisionism on, say, 'mind-control cults of the past', then got it published in a peer-reviewed journal of some stature. But even if that happened, it would create a controversial new class of cults, yet not affect the historic change in meaning of the 1920s-30s cited by Melton, which is the basis for the former 1920+ rule criterion. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you entirely, and myself think this list should be deleted, but this listing is not proper. Someone needs to re-list it with deletion criteria else I fail to see how this could end up rendering any actual decision.PelleSmith (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment (2 e/cs w/revert and thread mess to clean up) Check my comment above to T-rex - it might have happened to you also, but you tell me. (Not sure what your formatting objection is - it's a standard double-indented-insert showing a direct reply to the top poster, but added later. Follow the edge of your earlier direct reply straight up to the top poster. I didn't use a leading asterisk out of habit due to the problem that a leading asterisk won't support line breaks within the comment. See if this is ok.) Milo 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close I would think that the objections raised above merit cleanup and talk page discussion, not destruction of the article. As a clearinghouse of closely related topics this list has value. While it may not be possible to quantitatively delimit organizations that merit inclusion, it is certainly possible to come to a consensus about specific organizations. Besides, sources being discussed as cults should be sourced as such. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been clean-up efforts, discussions, proposals, etc for at least 2 years. At best it's been a "2 steps forward then three steps back" kind of process.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2 steps forward then three steps back" Yes, that's a fact, but isn't that normal for a controversial article? So, should global warming have been dumped in the 'it doesn't exist' days? Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I misread that for "3 steps forward then two steps back". I don't agree that there hasn't been any progress. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The global warming article appears to be only two months older than this one. It was featured when it was about 54-55 months old. Talk:List of groups referred to as cults/Archive 9 gives a sense, good and bad, of where the cult list was at that age.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made my day. Archive 9 begins with LOGRTAC's most productive period, the second half of 2006. Six to eight editors all worked together on an abstract set of cult list rulecraft issues. They succeeded in crafting selection criteria, which produced a list that made sense to passing editors and lasted for over a year. Milo 08:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Close without prejudice As someone noted above I question any list that mixes Communism, Judaism, & the Hells Angels. I also think this AFD has gotten off to a start that can't lead to a consensus. If nominated it needs to be nominated by someone who truly believes it should be deleted, and have them put a good effort into explaining exactly why it should go.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AgreeDelete This article is the definition of a coatrack, but this AfD is a non-starter given the way it was opened. There's no delete rationale on which to build any discussion. Townlake (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (time stamping strikethrus Townlake (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy Keep No rationale for deletion stated. Townlake (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly Withdrawn ...since others have stepped forward to actually make cogent arguments for deletion. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep if the sources back all of it up, and keep removing unsourced bits or adding reliable sources for them if they exist. Sticky Parkin 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy keep. Impeccably sourced, encyclopedic content, good organization; an ideal, list, really. It has issues like any other article or list, but that is why we have regular editing processes and don't do everything as a committee. If there are issues that can't be resolved, then come back and layout your concerns, but coming here with nothing makes this a pointless AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  While I think this AfD needs a "procedural close" calling this an ideal list filled with "encyclopedic content," which is "impeccably sourced" is pure madness. There is little to no academic basis for including the drastically varied uses of the term cult, and there certainly is no reliable scholarly sourcing for virtually all of the inclusions on the list. If the list were to be workable you'd have to scrap most of it and get a very strict academic definition requiring scholarly sourcing, and none of this mass media hysteria/hype or quoting of biased parties.PelleSmith (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already a strict-standard academic section, but it doesn't cover the notable issues of cult crimes, lawsuits, abuse, and illegal labor exploitation (often children). At LOGRTAC these issues are covered by the reliable source media section. You may not be a fan of Wikipedia's coverage of the police beat, but in 1995 the French Report decided that watching and control of cults that commit small crimes was an urgent priority to prevent more of the thousand-some deaths caused by cults between 1978 and 1995 (see the unofficial French Report translation). You can say you don't agree, but global citizens have decided otherwise, and the principles of the French Report have been quietly adopted by other countries (see GRTACIGD). Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Absurd nomination. Please do not bring articles to AFD because it is their anniversary or for procedural reasons. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closin admin This response is to the initial lack of any real deletion criteria caused by a very awkward nomination. PelleSmith (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this WP:LIST. It is a useful navigational tool for anyone researching the phenomenon of cults; it also has potential as a development tool. The list has a well-defined inclusion criterion, i.e. groups referred to by reliable sources as cults. I have no opinion on whether a post-1920 rule should be applied, and no comment to make on the presence of inappropriate entries. Such questions of content or quality are beyond the scope of AfD and should not be used as arguments for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or if you want userfy. I worked on this list in 2005 and some of 2006. I've also been on the talk page of it on at times since then. I believe it is impossible to do this list in a public forum because of conflicting perspectives and ambiguity in meaning. Also that the articles cult suicide, destructive cult, and Groups referred to as cults in government documents are sufficient.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also procedurally weird or whatever I think it's better to discuss this now then close it and then discuss it in a couple days or let it fester longer.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close/Keep reestablish 1920 cirteria on talk page. ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is kept, the 1920+ criteria should be re-established, it was based on a reliable source, and makes sense as modern notions of the word "cult" only developed around then. Merzul (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This list is thoroughly sourced. It has a clear criteria that is strictly enforced. It maintains the NPOV, attributing the claims to the sources. The matter of groups called cults is noteworthy, with numerous lists in existance in both scholarly and popular sources. I'd also note that a recently-agreed upon, though not yet implemented, change would require at least two media sources for each group which would remove some odd entries like Wikipedia and Protestantism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the list is useless, because it confuses the distinction between a cult in the sense of a destructive cult, and other definitions. In the past Sunni and Shia Islam were listed, based on sources that indicated nothing of the sort. Also, other religions have been listed, again based on inaccurate reading of sources. Agree with PelleSmith, to describe this article as "impeccably sourced, encyclopedic content, good organization; an ideal, list" is ridiculous. Finally, per T. Anthony, the subject is adequately covered by other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Sunni and Shia" Those were two of the more worrisome listings that were eliminated by the 1920+ rule criterion, and a potentially urgent reason why 1920+ should be restored. You've obviously made up your mind, but I hope others editors here will help get major religions back off a list on which they do not belong. Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Milo, about having made up my mind - yes, probably. I think the section using academic sources is ok, however the media section has always proved difficult to manage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the LOGRTAC talk archives from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 when 1920+ was a criterion. Compared to previous years, it was relatively quiet at talk and the media entries were easy to manage. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I participated in the discussion under my previous user name of Addhoc. PhilKnight (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorise apart from a lot of self explanation and invented inclusion criteria the list doesn't seem to provide anything a category wouldn't, it's main body is already organised like a category. If accusations of being a cult are an important feature of the group a reliable source saying as much will already be given in the group's article so I don't see the lack of referencing in a category being a problem. Guest9999 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Categorization was tried and rejected long ago. The basic objection was that Wikipedia was seen as declaring categorized groups to be cults, which nearly all active groups deny. The exception is destructive cults, which everyone agrees are cults in fact; but there are less than 20 of those, most of which no longer exist. "accusations of being a cult ... will already be given in the group's article" Unfortunately not. Eventually all regular cult topics editors learn that groups' articles are collectively WP:OWNed by each group. Unless endlessly watched and coerced, reliable-source mind-control cult references will usually be purged from their articles. Occasionally certain groups become object lessons for editorial enforcement, but most purge cult accusations as they please. That leaves LOGRTAC as the only place in Wikipedia where further research can be done on most group's cult accusations, and naturally that means LOGRTAC is a target for tendentious group members, who never give up on trying to get it deleted. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Categorization is a potentially worse idea as it gives no explanation or context. Plus we already have Category:Cults.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the criteria of Category:Cults specifically prohibits adding groups. It is only used for general articles on cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close with prejudice; recommend starting a Wikiproject to maintain it and a meta-discussion on how to handle repeated AfDs on an article. History has shown that when a subject racks up this many AfDs, it usually leads to extensive and rather unproductive debate and is eventually deleted on a technicality, to the satisfaction of no one except a few people with an axe to grind. Haikupoet (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be correct about the downward arc, but I don't see how a Wikiproject would help just one article if they're a means to centrally coordinate several articles. The problem is that there are more of "them" (anti-reporting group members) than there are of "us" (pro-reporting encyclopedists). The group leaders seem to recruit an unending supply of aggressive ideologues who argue against facts, aggressive sophists with cunning agendas, and aggressive de-educated clones who use words differently from the way they are defined in standard dictionaries (use Google to sample the Babydweezil cult topic dialogues). OTOH, pro-reporters eventually get tired of tendentious struggle with the marching shards of Mickey's broomstick (cf:Fantasia). Milo 08:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I know PelleSmith from Wikiproject:Atheism and I've seen T. Anthony before in many places. About PelleSmith, I don't know that he has any axe to grind other than enforcing WP policies. I have previously disagreed with him twice, and now I agree with him. Merzul (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You inferred a position I did not imply. T. Anthony is a old-time LOGRTAC editor whom I respect and like. His position is philosophical. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Characterizing all the editors 'voting' delete in this manner isn't reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That didn't happen. My example was Babydweezil, a long-banned user. Most AfD delete voters appear to not be tendentious group members. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct, I was quick to take offense; since you have made clear that you don't consider most delete voters part of that group, I think this issue is resolved. I'm not sure about the article though, I will follow the discussion. Merzul (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah Milo and I get along fairly well on the talk page. In an idealistic way I'd like to think he's right and his ideas on improvement sound mostly reasonable. I'm just not particularly idealistic, at least not when it comes to matters of Wikipedia and religious groups. I feel the ultimate collapse of the period of improvement was inevitable because of the nature of Wikipedia and the disputed nature of the word "cult" in general society. If we were at a convention of sociologists maybe it would be different. (Then again maybe not)--T. Anthony (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I gave this a long thought and reading what people say here and on the talk page, I'm leaning towards delete due to the serious concerns about the synthetic nature of this list. I think there is a problem when a term is a) ambiguous and b) controversial, so we should not bunch together groups that have been called cults for whatever reason. A detailed survey that would pay attention to the various reasons a group have been labeled a cult would indeed be useful, but that requires a bit of high quality original research, something we should leave to experts. Or not, so an option would be to userify this list so that proponents could come up with a more careful construction, but this current mess should be deleted. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  For other editors, the WP:Synthesis claim has been refuted at "cult cocktail" below. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am changing my original recommendation of "Speedy close" on procedural grounds (see above archive), since no such close occurred and now there are other rationales for deletion all over this AfD. This list is not simply uninformative but actually anti-informative as it confuses readers by presenting a hodge podge of unrelated groups under different sourcing criteria (scholarship v. mass media) without adequately explaining the meaning of it all. A particular problem presents in listing groups referred to as cults by the media, since scholars consider the media a primary source, not as the uninformed reader will imagine, for simply "identifying cults" but instead for aiding the mass cultural creation of "cults" by activating and promoting the label in the first place. An unfortunate result of this is that many well meaning individuals "think they know something" about cults since they are reasonably informed news watchers--these people do know "something" for sure, but they don't see the social process at work here, nor do they get the distinction between the findings of research and the hype of mass culture. To them it seems logical that this is an informative and helpful list, and that sourcing it to the media is a high standard of verification. That simply is not so. Also this list ("LOGTRAC" to some) should not be maintained in order to influence other social and political institutions, or otherwise maintained for the purpose of aiding the Anti-cult movement in their own lobbying efforts and civil engagements. While anyone should be free to cite Wikipedia for their own purposes we ought to be weary of claims that this type of greater purpose is a rationale for having information on Wikipedia in the first place. I have suggested already on the talk page of this list, that a more adequate list could be something like List of NRMs labeled as "cults" in mass culture, or List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media. Such lists would satisfy the Anti-cult movement because it is exactly the groups they target that would be listed, but such a list would also nuance and distinguish the meaning of the list in the first place--the accurate distinction between scholarly and popular understandings of "cults" and the recognition of the social process that causes actors in mass cultural discourses to apply the label "cult" to an NRM, and/or less so to a secular group of some kind. That, if well sourced with scholarship would be an informative list.PelleSmith (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a more adequate list could be something like List of NRMs labeled as "cults" in mass culture, or List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media."

That title has no advantages over the current one, plus an additional disadvantage that some cults are not religious. Also since, very roughly, 97% of NRMs are not cults, putting NRM in the title could cause unnecessary offense. While NRM was coined as an intended synonym for a religious cult, it was only partly accepted by scholars and not at all by the public. See Cult. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a distorted version of fact. "NRM" was introduced to replace the term "cult" in sociology. NRM has little to no currency in popular discourse (something I know you know and can diff you saying yourself). In other words in the same sentence you invoke the scholarly usage of NRM and the common usage of cult, as if that makes any sense. The vast majority of NRMs are not destructive cults and or otherwise clearly abusive or illegally behaving organizations, but to those who cling to the old sociological usage of cult, they are still "cults". This confusion is a distraction. My suggestion is precisely to be exact about the scholarly labels and the popular labels. You act as if an NRM not on the list will take offense because we clearly attributed the cult label to other NRMs on the list to the media. All I can say to that is ... AS IF!! There was an alternative btw, see the talk page, in which I removed NRM altogether, but we still utilized the scholarship v. media distinction. List of groups referred to as "cults" in the media.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see the talk page here for two very valid points derived from the essays of two scholars in this field. I'm copying these from Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#.22Cult.22. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment PelleSmith seems to be arguing for an article move, rather than a delete. It's a good argument for such, and I'd support it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response (w/ agreement but for semantics) Call it what you will but my recommendation remains "delete" for the current list with an added recommendation for what could be an informative but "different" list. I would advise to start from scratch and not to move. I also have other ideas on how to restrict the list in ways appropriate to a name of the kind I have suggested but will not bother posting them here. Should this happen I will be glad to join the conversation.PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The technical implementation could still be a page move followed by stubbing the article. It would keep the contribution history, and one could selectively restore the relevant parts of it. I support the idea to focus on NRMs, using a more neutral title, and adding a carefully written introduction about the problems with media based on PelleSmith's academic sources. Merzul (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)Quite correct I suppose. I think the stubbing is essential. The old list should be kept as a resource (userfied or something) to aid in the creation of the new list (stub, or whatever you want to call it).PelleSmith (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As discussed on the article talk page, several entries are not NRMs: Alcoholics Anonymous, Aesthetic Realism, and the LaRouche movement. We already have a list of NRMs elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are not "several" in any meaningful sense, there are a handful, literally. The fact that these groups have been called "cults" simply exemplifies the confusion that exists in popular usage. A better route to take here is to create another list for this small handful titled List of non-religious groups referred to as "cults" by the media, and/or to create a subsection in the proposed list that deals with the very very few "non-religious" groups that become lumped into the popular designation "cult". Otherwise you're simply arguing for confusion and misrepresentation.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can't see any advantage to splitting the list into "religious" and "non-religous" groups. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't see the advantage in keeping this cult-cocktail, unless it is more focused and scholarly. Merzul (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1. "cult-cocktail" You've linked that phrase to WP:SYN.

←That misunderstanding fails a plain-text reading of WP:Synthesis: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." But LOGRTAC is just a list article with links and quotes, which are never original research. There are no conclusions, so synthesis isn't possible. Now, all controversial articles create strong Rorschach impressions in readers of things that are not there, but they are different impressions for different readers. Subjective inferences are also not WP:Synthesis.

2. "focused" The article is about a spelling with eight or more homonyms (or polysemes). Perhaps you are dissatisfied with the degree to which those homonyms are currently disambiguated, and so am I, but the criteria are also not unfocused in the sense of vague.

3. "scholarly" Three of the c-u-l-t homonyms, sociology, psychology, and ancient veneration theology are scholarly, are reported by academic journals, and they are adequately addressed. The next homonym, Biblical theology, is reported by fundamentalist sources and some religious journals, but all such scholarship is religiously partisan. The remaining homonyms have sometimes overlapping meanings of destruction, abuse/exploitation, and mind-control, are reported by newspapers, and are adequately addressed. This is not scholarship, but it is responsible journalism. Any view that reliably-sourced journalism is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, is not compatible with WP:V.

4. "advantage" Assuming it refers to the reader's advantage, this is an argument of utility – asking of what use is the article to the reader, even though there is no such Wikipedia requirement. The consensed purpose of the LOGRTAC article is "further research" which is a use. Since this utility issue often comes up as a puzzlement among editors unfamiliar with the global seriousness of the cult topics, I anticipated it by posting a list of Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults is useful, with the clear understanding that they aren't the purpose. The argument that the reader shouldn't make use of the article in certain ways is irrelevant to whether it could be useful, and a call for deletion on a "shouldn't use" basis is a call for censorship. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored) Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... good points.

1. Synthesis, well, I have to admit that I do see blood when other people see only bunnies and flowers. For example, I thought synthesis being violated on the atheism page when it said "Notable atheists of the last century include Bertrand Russell^[1] and Joseph Stalin.^[2]" (and a few more...), so probably synthesis is not the problem here, but ...

2. I think you have nailed what really bothers me and what I thought to be the implied conclusion not supported by the sources, the implication that these references to the word "cult" would be referring to the same concept. On the deeper problem, it seems we fundamentally agree.

3. Here is a serious disagree with PelleSmith, and I don't have an opinion on that, yet... I don't know if I will be able to form an opinion on that, but it is being discussed on the talk page of this AfD.

4. Again, a disagreement with PelleSmith, but here I completely agree with you. If our articles can be of any use to people as a starting point for research, I don't see a problem with that. Merzul (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UGH. Merzul I have to disagree with you.

2 Here Milo is completely misrepresenting the ambiguity of this term in a falsely systematic way, as if there are eight readily definable homonyms (inside and outside of scholarship). This is not true. There are a handful of related scholarly usages of this term and then there are a mish mash of related popular/media usages of the term all of which are pejorative and fall on a scale of relative similarity to the usage by the Anti-cult movement. Also the very idea that this article is about a "spelling" is ridiculous. If that is the case we need to close it down immediately. That argument is simply a way to get around my suggestion about NRMs vs. cults and starting from a position of scholarly precision, as if this entry isn't about NRMs since that label is no longer part of the homonym family ... although in scholarship NRM is exactly about the pertinent subject matter.

3 Leaving the usages available from within a religious perspective (e.g any theology) aside--there are usages of this term in the psychology/sociology/anthropology/religious studies in relation to NRMs (mostly in the developed world) and then there are usages in the social sciences (mostly anthropology) but more so the history of religions (and religious studies) in relation to religious veneration and systematic ritual practice. When Milo admits that the "remaining homonyms" all relate to "destruction, abuse/exploitation, and mind-control" he is mostly correct. It should be noted here that there is absolutely no scholarly evidence for the "brainwashing" (e.g. mind-control) claims made by the Anti-cult movement and bandied about by the media. What Milo fails to point out is that these various usages of "cult" all derive from scholarly usages (mostly the social sciences), but as such have been completely malformed to the point that they add characteristics (mind-control) and insinuations (everything with the label is abusing and exploitative) that are simply the product of hysteria and not empirical evidence. Finally, the claim Milo makes about WP:V supporting the use of the media here is patently false. Scholarship from peer-reviewed publications and academic publishers is much more reliable than the media. When we have a situation in which there are empirical studies that show the popular bias in using the term "cult", and an almost complete consensus in the scholarly community that the media reportage on NRMs ("cults") is biased and distorted it becomes imperative to explain what someone is looking at when they see a "list of groups the media has labeled as a cult". Doing otherwise is simply against our principles here of presenting NPOV information to our readers, and against the purpose of WP:V and WP:RS. Lets not forget the volumes of scholarship available on the Anti-cult movement and its causal connection to various moral panics.

4 Here I think you (Merzul) have the right idea in mind but maybe you're not seeing what I am. The problem is not in a benefit that providing accurate and NPOV information may have to society at large. The problem is with writing entries in order to effect some sort of change in society at large. Articles can be of use to people as starting points of research, sure that's entirely fine, but what Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective on this matter. In other words, if you read his points at the top of this AfD you'll see its not as innocent as you think. We're not just talking about helping people learn, we're talking about furthering hysteria. That's simply not our job at Wikipedia.PelleSmith (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"there is absolutely no scholarly evidence for the "brainwashing" (e.g. mind-control)"

The issue is definitely disputed but "absolutely no scholarly evidence" is unsupportable. The basic source is Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, CUNY. For later decades of pro and con positions, see Mind control#Cults and mind control controversies. BTW, "brainwashing" and "mind-control" are not the same.

"claim Milo makes about WP:V supporting the use of the media here is patently false."

Tsk, tsk, maybe you wouldn't have lost your credibilty if you had read it before claiming that: WP:V#Reliable sources (emphasis mine):

...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. .... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

"what Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective on this matter."

Denied. Other readers may examine my rejection of this claim on the talk page at Righting Great Wrongs. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo you have very selectively quoted from WP:V and I have dealt with this issue at full on the RS/N. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_AfD. There is in fact a scale of reliability we adhere to based upon the quality of sources, of which scholarship clearly trumps news media. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems that the objections on the talk page are then the central concern here. It appears to me that what I find most annoying is actually the result of a somewhat pointy attempt to get a focused "cult" list deleted; while on the talk page, there is discussions about some of the deeper problems that even a list focused on NRM labeled as cults would have, unless dealt with carefully. Do I understand things more or less correctly? Merzul (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current list is not "focused" it is confusing (unless you don't mean the current list here at all). My suggestion is to focus the list by adding precision and clarity, based upon the best available scholarly information. I'm not sure I think the attempt is pointy to delete the current list as much as there is a very valid point to deleting and starting from scratch. There is some discussion on this talk page, but it hasn't gone too far and seems to center around the notion that all groups labeled as cults are not "religious", hence the NRM distinction is not good. The truth of the matter is that very very few are not religious, and the fact that a couple of "non-religious" groups have made into this category simply speaks to the inaccuracy of the popular usage, which (and the scholarship is all there to back this up) did evolve from the same academic usages that have now evolved into NRMs. In the end, most of this discussion should be on a talk page and not here, that is entirely correct, however since Milo keeps on bringing in reasons to keep that strike at the heart of the public misunderstanding of this term it has become imperative to clarify the issues.PelleSmith (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"all groups labeled as cults are not "religious", hence the NRM distinction is not good"

A mind-control cult is expected to be some system whereby one turns over their thinking to a group, combined with novel group beliefs and high group tension with the surrounding culture. Religion is the just the easiest way to seduce people into a cult, but political extremisms, questionable therapies, and pyramidal business marketings can also create cults.

I need to be a lot more specific, the "focused" list that I talk about is the hypothetical list that Milo would like to create to avoid the different meanings. About pointiness, it is not pointy to argue for deletion like you do, but I find it somewhat disruptive to add entries to this list with the express purpose of showing the ridiculousness of the entry criteria, and much worse, there seems to be a prolonged campaign to have the list deleted by adding all sorts of things on there. The right way to go about is of course the discussion on the talk page. And I think I do agree that your title is more appropriate, I need some time to think about it, and would like to see what other people say. Merzul (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to re-emphasize, the fact that this afd even exists is a mistake and it should have been shut down as soon as it started. The afd was brought by someone who believed keep was correct and now it's a debate about the content, not the existance. This should have been closed long ago,--Cube lurker (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, process is important in building an encyclopedia together, but we don't have to follow all rules when the discussion is otherwise reasonable. I find the current AfD debate constructive and believe some consensus can emerge out of this. Do you believe otherwise? Merzul (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this has become constructive, but I also think this AfD has turned into a conversation far more appropriate for the article's talk page than this forum... and this was sort of inevitable given that the nominator didn't start the AfD with a deletion rationale for discussion. The only consensus we seem to have is that the article needs improvement; I do recognize that's a worthwhile conclusion. Townlake (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with "it needs improvement" in a way, but I think for a variety this will not happen, or at least it won't last, and that deletion is appropriate. I'd be willing to declare myself a "sponsor" for it being AfD'd if the actual nomination is deemed inappropriate.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly fair considering remaining AfD time, as well as to the participants who've moved on, accepting UltraExactZZ's strong recommendation that this should be a speedy close. Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have they radically shortened the time an AfD can go? From what I can tell the majority of the AfDs from June 10 are still being debated. Don't we have five days from nomination? That should give us tell Wednesday.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still if it's necessary for process I'll AfD this a few hours after this AfD is closed. That's assuming it's closed before June 16. (Three days seems like the normal minimum)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the rush. Won't you be here six months from now? Historically LOGRTAC gets about six months between AfDs. There was a year's delay to this one, because it took a number of months for Catholics to be put back on the list after the 1920+ criterion was removed by group members (so they could put Christianity-generally on the list). Milo 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years of this going nowhere is not "a rush." Besides what good will waiting do? I feel this being AfD'd now is valid. If it's going to get closed on a technicality I'll reopen it. (My computer is having problems so I might not be able to respond)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Years of this going nowhere "

I don't agree that is a fact. I think this article was started in (Feb?) 2004, but the early history was misplaced by a redirect laid over page move. Since the spelling has so many homonyms, it probably took a year or so just figure out what the issues were. Then it took the next year or so to find and consense the current NPOV title, and to develop criteria that focused the list on mind-control cults without theological cults (1920+ rule). Then a year in which the list functioned with relatively little controversy, while the centrist editors drifted away thinking the job was done. Then a recent year or less in which members of the listed groups hijacked the article because it was working, and jammed it with theological cults in order to get the article AfD'd. And here we are.

That article history is not "years of this going nowhere", but it's also not for impatient editors used to normal article construction times. It has been slow going because by analogy the topic has a huge 'virtual mass', meaning there's a huge amount to discuss due to all the homonyms and resulting homonymic conflict. Using a near analogy, if there are eight homonyms, every article-structure decision has to be consensed eight times. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a "3-articles" proposal.

The 1920+ criterion was successful because it separated references to old institutions founded before 1920, from references to modern institutions founded 1920+, by scientifically disambiguating the original word "cult" (of veneration - cultus) from all of the later junior homonyms. This separation prevents homonymic conflict, the root cause of the cult-conflict word issues (as opposed to the issues inherent to groups no matter what they are called).

The problem was that only a single article (LOGRTAC) needed to be taken over by group members to undo the anti-conflict separation. Therefore, I propose three ideas I've previously mentioned separately:

1. Rename LOGRTAC to include the 1920+ rule in the title (lists groups founded 1920 onward).

2. Create a second article to include a "1919-" rule in the title (which lists only groups founded 1919 or earlier).

3. Create a third article to include only cult-followings (fan-cults of popular culture).

This way, group members would have to take over at least two of the three articles, change their criteria, rename, and merge them to restart c-u-l-t homonymic conflict at Wikipedia. Unlike criteria changes, rename and merge processes require flags to be set wiki-wide, increasing the chances that tough "why?" questions would be asked by investigating editors.

A classic objection has been a desire to avoid lengthy article names at LOGRTAC, but (re)ending homonymic conflict now seems to be a more urgent priority. LOGRTAC has been through a substantial series of name changes. The current word string has been thoroughly vetted and must be retained in some equivalent form to avoid restarting settled NPOV conflicts. ("List of cults", "purported" or "alleged" don't work.)

There may be no good names so lengthy, so my suggested goal is to coin the least bad ones. The one with the best grammar is listed first:

a "List of groups founded 1920 onward and referred to as cults"

b "List of groups founded 1920+ and referred to as cults"

c "List of groups founded 1920 onward - referred to as cults"

d "List of groups founded 1920 onward, referred to as cults"

e "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920+"

f "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920 on"

h "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920 onward"

i "List of groups referred to as cults, founded after 1919"

j "List of groups founded before 1920 and referred to as cults" (old groups)

etc. Milo 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond separately to my comment below. The idea that we need to keep "group members" from hijacking these lists is correct, but you fail to explain that there are two types of "group members": 1) people belonging to NRMs and "cults and 2) people belonging to or promoting the views of the Anti-cult movement. Your suggestions only attempt to keep the first group at bay, while in fact welcoming the second with open arms. What makes this issue more difficult is (and there exists easily sourced scholarly consensus here) that the second group's agendas and misinformation are unfortunately assimilated to lesser and greater extents into cultural institutions like the media, as well as popular opinion. This attempted end run around scholarship and in support of the lobbying efforts of anti-cultists really needs to be understood for what it is. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you rather nicely on your talk page to evaluate my suggestion above, something you seem to be ignoring. Can you explain why List of NRMs referred to by the media as "cults" is a poor suggestion? There is a very important distinction to be made between those using this term, and what they mean. Your suggestions circumvent the precision that mine suggests. I'd like to know why you think they are preferable.PelleSmith (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advantage to be gained by replacing "groups" in the title with "NRMs". It would exclude several groups that aren't relgions, and wouldn't make the list any different otherwise. As for adding "by the media", one of the two lists in the artice is of references by scholars. We don't need to spell out every aspect of the criteria in the title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage is keeping the oranges off of the page with all the apples. There are 4-5 groups that are not NRMs, and its is rather clear that media usage and scholarly usage of "cult" is not the same. But for those few groups all others are NRMs. The word, in popular usage, is derived from the sociological usage of "cult", which NRM is now a preferred synonym of. In terms of the media vs. scholarship simply listing one and then the other is just confusing, and it does not explain at all the discrepancy. It is, as I said already anti-informational, and only to the advantage of those who wish to obscure the scholarship here in favor of the bias presented by the media and by the Anti-cult movement. Scholarship not only offers a different perspective than the media it offers a perspective critical of the media. You can't keep on sidestepping this issue in order to keep up the rouse that media hype is purely and innocently informational here.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use the media as sources for most article in Wikipedia. Here we are specifically setting aside a special section of the article as being devoted to media references. Readers aren't unaware of the fact that these entries are sourced to the media. We also contrast the list with a list supported by scholarly sources. think it highlights scholarship rather than mixing it in with media sourcing, as most WP articles do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they are unaware of, Will, is the well documented consensus amongst scholars that the media is a biased source when comes to "cult reporting." This is not a usual case at all, and is not comparable to how we usually use the media to source entries. As I've already told Milo as well, scholarship published in peer reviewed journals and by academic publishers is more reliable than the press. It is one thing when one or two media outlets have a specific bias, and quite another when scholarly consensus is that the media can't be trusted to report this subject matter adequately. We are dealing with a subject matter here, NRMs also known as cults, and not just some term "cult". What needs contrasting is how scholars and the media identify the "SAME GROUPS", and that is what I'm suggesting. This obfuscation grows more and more tiring. What exactly do you have against the scholarly consensus here?PelleSmith (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for this scholarly consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See references cited in [[1]]? John Campbell (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven sources are mentioned there at Opposition to cults and new religious movements#The_role_of_the_media. Not all can be referred to as scholars. One mentions cults. One mentions cults and is paid by a cult-referred group leader. One mentions NRMs and anti-cultists. One mentions journalism. One mentions secularism. One mentions Christians. One mentions religionists. The scholarly consensus if any, is probably stated by Dart and Allen, 1983: "unhealthy distrust exists between religionists and journalists. Religious figures fear that people may misunderstand and misrepresent them; journalists fear making mistakes and incurring religious wrath.[...] The resulting apprehensions inhibit the free flow of information and only add to misunderstanding."

PelleSmith (00:49): "media can't be trusted to report this subject matter adequately"

What's adequate? There's only one universally agreed standard for adequate journalism, and that is the law of libel. Can the media be trusted to report NRMs and cults to adequately prevent defamation lawsuits? For most stories, most of the time, the media can be trusted to report in a way that avoids lawsuits, because they would lose money and possibly their jobs to do otherwise.

Do cults, NRMs, politicians, celebrities, and average people like the way they are reported to the public? Often they don't, but if they can't sue, the reporting was adequate.

There is no reason why cults and NRMs should get any special exemption from media coverage in Wikipedia. Once that slippery slope is tilted, every bad news media story ever written about anything could be deleted by being subjected to a scholarly consensus of media inadequacy. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to give NRMs special treatment ... but nice reversal of logic there. Do you see a List of celebrities called fat ... or a List of heads of state ridiculed by the media? It is not special treatment to refrain from creating lists that use, as you admit yourself, a pejorative label to group various entities. Give us a break.PelleSmith (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PelleSmith. An acknowledged pejorative label is not a suitable criterion for creating a list. Jayen466 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a done deal; Wikipedia contains other pejorative lists. See List of events named massacres. Below your 08:31, 20 June 2008 post I've commented further . Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have asked for feedback on WP:RS/N about this issue as I think it is very complicated. I gave my impression of the debate, so if that was not fair, please add one comment here describing the issues more properly. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I responded with an analysis that it was not a reliable source issue. Examining whether groups media coverage could be deleted from LOGRTAC, I concluded that WP:V would have to be modified in such a way as to result in the New York Times being removed from most Wikipedia articles – so concluding the argument with a WP:SNOWBALL. See List of groups referred to as cults AfD. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Extremely meticulously cited list which appears to have gone through at least five previous AfDs, all of which resulted in keeping the list. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note the last two AfDs ended with no consensus, not a keep. So it has been three years since an AfD on this list gave us a keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Indeed, I just removed one of the meticulous citations: Landover Baptist Church. On the other hand, why not? It is a very amusing list with well-known cults like Wikipedia, Hell's Angels, and the Roman Catholic Church; why not provide at least some competition to uncyclopdaedia, they think we lack a sense of humour. Merzul (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More seriously, I think keeping the current list is the worst choice. We either go with Milo's suggestion with something of a 1920+ rule, or with PelleSmith's idea to be sensitive to NRMS. Although the current list is the worst choice, entries like Wikipedia and the Catholic Church take any seriousness out of it, so I think PelleSmith doesn't have to worry about this being used for NRM hysteria. It would still be a very bad compromise, but if we can't reach a consensus, then the current list is at least harmless and somewhat amusing. Merzul (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was a serious entry. See a quote box of the qualifying text below. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • The "Roman Catholic Church"/"Landover Baptist Church" was added on on June 13 by user:Storm Rider.[2] That user has argued against the existence of the article. I won't assume bad faith by guessing he intentionally added a poorly-source entry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Nor should you assume bad faith; when the standard of calling a group a cult is whatever the media says we lose all sense of a standard. As I indicated on the article's talk page, there are over 4 million entries on google for "Catholic, cult" (not all of which are negative, but more common to cultus, but the point remains many call the RCC a cult). What I did was simply do a quick search to add a group that I find best exemplifies that the list is without an anchor because there is no accepted definition of the term "cult". You may disagree that such an action helpful, but I believe it demonstrates how silly the list is. When the media becomes the standard any church could be added and thus the list cannot be maintained, nor would it be meaningful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be that as it may, the sourcing is still not as meticulous as some claim. It is rather disheartening that people just look at the entry and assume that what it looks like must be correct. I'm removing dead links even as we speak, and I've noticed that several "news stories" in which we cite an actual news publication actually link to hosting on www.rickross.com, which is a problem, especially when some are "news summaries" of the original. On top of this one finds news articles from lesser publications in which the "experts" applying the "cult" label are people like Steven Hassan, who have entrepeneurial interest in locating cults. I'm not saying this is a disqualification, but simply that the sourcing issue is far from meticulous and/or reliable, even by media standards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You made many "corrections" that were only your misunderstandings, that I had to spend hours reverting in the middle of a "rush" AfD. Example, you don't remove dead links, you mark them, ...and on and on and on, all of which I've gone into detail about on the article talk page. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • • The links to the Rick Ross should only be "courtesy links", copies of news items. If you delete any please leave a citation to the original source. Ditto with dead links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I highly doubt that Rick Ross is considered reliable for reproducing news stories, and as I said some are even labelled as "news summaries" of the original. I am tagging all such rick ross links with this^{[unreliable source?]}. The dead links were deleted and I don't think they provided any exact citation only the supposed publication name, but let me look.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are there instances of Ross incorrectly reproducing news stories? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps this discussion is better conducted on the article talk page, where a thread has already been started. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Further, Ross republishes this material in clear violation of copyright and we should not be linking to such violations, see WP:EL:

              "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

              It would behoove this project to strip out these "courtesy links" wherever found leaving only the bare reference to the original source. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That quote from WP:EL doesn't apply to references with convenience links, or to news archives which are not in clear violation of copyright. Copyright law generally allows fair use copies for study (somewhat depending on the market for educational sales to college students). Ross also offers to remove the copies of any newspaper that objects.

  Overall, not copyvio, although also no consensus. Until consensus, if ever, the news archive convenience links can stay. However, it's consensed that direct links should replace convenience links, if direct links exist. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • • • • There was a fairly recent discussion of this at RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links Jayen466 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:COATRACK and inherently POV list can serve no useful purpose as the only standard for inclusion seems to be that someone somewhere (in RS) once called a group a "cult". It is about as useful as the hypothetical List of people referred to as stupid. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Justallofthem a.k.a. Justanother appears to be a member of a LOGRTAC listed group who would benefit from making unfavorable news more inaccessible. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[3][reply]

  And that, my friend, is what we call an ad hominem argument and a violation of WP:AGF. I hope your other arguments for keeping this list are more coherent logically --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is the problem with the current list and my position is a clear delete on this one. However, there are two proposals to do more careful lists. I don't know what is right, so I'm going to stop commenting after each vote, but this current mess is basically a failed compromise. I do hope a real compromise can be reached... Merzul (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The current list was not any sort of compromise – it was a hijack tendentiously led by a now banned group member. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no clear-cut definition of cult in its modern pejorative use so what we end up with is an inherently one-sided article that violates WP:NPOV in its very nature. And weasel-wording the title to "list of groups referred to a cults" rather than "list of cults" just highlights that point. Referred to by whom? What about the other side? What about the reputable sources that say the particular group is not a cult? The article is cherry-picked and one-sided by its very nature. The cult issue is a thorny one for this project which, as a whole, takes a much dimmer view, IMO, of religion than more traditional media, but this article is not the way to address it. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no clear-cut definition of cult in its modern pejorative use "

That's a groups' propaganda myth. Modern pejorative "cult" means groups who engage in destruction, mind-control, abuse, or exploitation, mostly of their own members. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Just all of them. List of fashion styles referred to as unflattering. List of films referred to as tedious. List of restaurants referred to as popular. If you look at the Guardian article that refers to WP as a cult the tone is clearly humorous. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Arthur appears serious to me and other editors when he refers by definition to Wikipedia as strange or sinister:

Log on and join in, but beware the web cults
Charles Arthur
The Guardian, December 15, 2005

"Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. Which, by my (computer's) dictionary definition, means "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing; a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society, 'a cult film'.

Certainly the latter definition could easily be used for Wikipedia. I also think the first ones are appropriate. There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the "rightness" of Wikipedia, or Apple's products, or RSS vs Atom. To outsiders, it makes little or no sense. To those inside, it is the most important topic they can imagine."

Given that some Wikipedians spend upwards of 12 hours daily online doing unremunerated work, with considerable impact on their family and social lives and their ability to hold a job (or indeed get one), it is certainly an argument that can be made. Jayen466 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The two biggest reasons being 1) Patent nonsense and 2) Wikipedia is not a directory. The article is atrocious and can't be fixed as its multiple nominations have shown. It is loaded with SYN, OR, and POV. It conflates the many different meanings of the word "cult" in the academic section and the media section is just meaningless. The problem with this article is summed up in this quote (which happens to be the last words on the entry for the term "cult" in a religious encyclopedia): "[T]he careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Society p. 123) There are multiple definitions of the term cult, even within a single discipline, they are used carelessly, even in academic journals, and this makes the taxonomy difficult. Lists "are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Wikipedia:Lists#List content provides “Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list.” and “If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title...” The problem is, because of the ambiguous, multiple and overlapping definitions of the term, the meaning can't be clarified. The list merely becomes a POV magnet and ends up meaningless. Wikipedia is not a directory. Just because there are cults out there does not mean an encyclopedia has to list them, especially when the definition is so slippery and the list ends up just being nonsense. Mamalujo (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those statements have too little factual basis for a response. For example, patent nonsense is just random typing, and WP:SYN and WP:NOR are impossible for an article that contains only links and quotes as content.

So why would he mount such an irrational attack?

Mamalujo is a member of a major religion (that is also defined as a theological cult), which the hijacking group members planned to use as AfD bait by removing the 1920+ criterion. It worked as planned, and here he is. He can't take revenge on the group members, so he's taking revenge on the article.

Since his positions are mostly a rant that doesn't make logical sense, I suggest that the closing admin ignore his vote. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is not a nice thing to have, but an official policy. Please do not use an AfD to attack people for their beliefs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't happen. His beliefs are ok with me. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the closing admin to discriminate against Mamalujo based upon his religious affiliation. Completely improper and uncalled for, not to mention based upon some serious paranoia.PelleSmith (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Re-read my last sentence. Milo 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm ... Milo your entire argument is built upon his religious identity ... you do understand that correct? Take away his religious affiliation and you have no argument, keep it in and its tantamount to saying that his religious identity causes a conflict, ask to have this conflict be the basis for dismissing his opinion, and you have clear discrimination on religious grounds. Sorry Milo, last sentence or not, that's what one understands from your statement.PelleSmith (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, your ad hominem attack on my motivation aside, there is a plain factual basis for my statements. The article is patent nonsense: It does not include what could fairly be called well known destructive cults (Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, and World Church of the Creator) yet until just after the nomination, and for long before that, it included the likes of Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism, Protestantism and (got to love this one) Wikipedia. As to OR or SYN, by Wikipedia policy they do apply to articles like this. And when the article and its editors conflate the many different definitions of cult (an inevitability in light of the varyiing and overlapping definitions and the POV nature of the subject), they are violating both those principles. Mamalujo (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As to OR or SYN, by Wikipedia policy they do apply to articles like this"

Yes, of course that's true by theoretical policy, but there is no practical way for it to occur. The only article content (as opposed to info notices) is links and quotes. Links and quotes are SYN and OR proof.

"And when the article and its editors conflate the many different definitions of cult"

No. Doesn't happen. Can't happen because there are no written conclusions.

You've subtly changed your position. In your (23:38) post you wiki-linked Patent nonsense which is an exact WP definition of "Patent nonsense", meaning things like random typing. Had any editor ever done that at LOGRTAC, it would have been quickly deleted by vandal fighters. Therefore LOGRTAC is not "WP:Patent nonsense" [category 1], using the random typing definition with which your post was published (intended or not) [Mamalujo apparently intended WP:NONSENSE category 2 - see post 18:42, 18 June 2008 below].

In your (18:38) post you have not wiki-linked "patent nonsense". While it's still not much of an argument, at least it can now be read metaphorically.

"The article is patent nonsense: It does not include what could fairly be called well known destructive cults (Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, and World Church of the Creator) yet until just after the nomination, and for long before that, it included the likes of Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism, Protestantism and (got to love this one) Wikipedia."

I see what you are saying. Loosely it might be termed "nonsense", but "patent" is rhetorically too presumptuous, given a system with a complex set of rules.

Here's my own first-post response to the same situation, except with Baptists and Quakers: Milo 05:13, 3 July 2006: "I was boggled by the inclusion of "Baptists" and "Quakers" on this list, yet I think it demonstrates that this page has achieved a usefully neutral method of listing such groups..." (M-W.com: boggle: to overwhelm with wonder or bewilderment <boggle the mind>)

I think the difference between our differing reactions was that I recognized this as machine logic rather than nonsense, calling for a reprogramming of the machine. The 1920+ rule criterion was the reprogramming that eliminated old religions from the list.

There's more arcane stuff in your first post, but I accept your second post as an understandable replacement. I withdraw my request for the closing admin to ignore. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the random typing example demostrates "total nonsense", the page on patent nonsense also talks about another type: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." This is precisely the case with this article, as my examples demonstrated, and it has been so for a very long time. The article makes no sense and it cannot be fixed, so it should be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever"

That definition of WP:NONSENSE is also trivial to refute.

To disqualify that claim, only one reasonable person has to find that LOGRTAC makes any sense at all. I claim to be one reasonable person, and LOGRTAC makes sense to me. There are also a substantial number of other keep voters on this page who have given reasons to keep LOGRTAC that make sense to them.

Thus LOGRTAC is not "WP:Patent nonsense", category 2. Q.E.D.

If the 1920+ criterion hadn't been hijacked, LOGRTAC would make so much sense that even you wouldn't be here complaining about it, because your old religion wouldn't be on the list. Milo 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. It's an attack page, nothing more. Use List of new religious movements instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an anti-science first for ScienceApologist, who is voting to delete a sociological and psychological science section that I think even PelleSmith agrees is valid. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe that is because SA can recognize science when he sees it and this article sure ain't science. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good comeback. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, use List of new religious movements instead. Media reporting on these issues is criticised by scholars and even by the United Nations ("the media, and in particular the popular press, all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in particular religious minorities, in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light" [4]. --Jayen466 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion is not an alternative. NRMs are very roughly 97% not cults, and some cults are not NRMs. Both NRMs and cults have beliefs non-traditional to the surrounding culture, but only cults have high tensions with the surrounding culture.

All media is biased due to fast reporting in a confined reporting space. That does not mean that there should be no media reporting (or indexing of it at LOGRTAC). WP:V has determined by policy that media references can appear in Wikipedia. See my answer to the related reliable sources issue that Merzul entered at List of groups referred to as cults AfD. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media bias is one thing, but doesn't this list have an inherent bias by selecting as its criterion for inclusion the application of a pejorative label, and offering no information but the application of that label alone? How does that approach an NPOV summary of available sources? You say, only cults have high tensions with the surrounding culture, but the reverse does not seem to be true. Not all cults listed in "LOGRTAC" are in a state of high tension with the surrounding culture. To give examples, Alcoholics Anonymous and Wikipedia are not, to my knowledge, in such a state of tension, yet they are in the list, because they fulfil the criteria. Now there is much more that can be said about AA and Wikipedia than that they are "cults", but there's no room to do so. – Many of the items in the list are NRMs; if you do a line-by-line comparison against the List of new religious movements, you will find considerably more than 3% of the NRM list represented here, and certainly most of the more visible NRMs are here. Generally speaking, the few list items that are not NRMs seem to have nothing much in common. (I note that someone has taken Wikipedia out of the list just recently, but here are the requisite media cites that would qualify Wikipedia for inclusion: [5][6][7]) Jayen466 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the alleged "inherent bias": the article militates against any inherent bias by casting its net wide and semi-mechanically covering both academic and popular press spectra of usage of the word "cult" and its synonyms. That covers a wide range of meanings while arguably combining to a good overall reflection of the general public's use of "a pejorative label". Built-in balancing = built-in neutral-point-of-view. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (08:31): "Not all cults listed in "LOGRTAC" are in a state of high tension with the surrounding culture."

You've changed the subject from NRM, a narrowly defined concept (new religions), to c-u-l-t, a complex set of homonyms with multiple copyright-variants on basic dictionary definitions.

LOGRTAC appears to be mostly but not solely, a list of "high tension" cults, which definition is I think is attributable to Stark and Bainbridge – but editors don't judge these. All cult definitions not specifically excluded (like easy to recognize fan-cults) are accepted at LOGRTAC. Charles Arthur got his definition for the Wikipedia cult from an unnamed computer dictionary (see quote box this page). Alexander and Rollins, 1984, got their AA cult definition from Robert Lifton, 1961, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.

Jayen466 (08:31): "more than 3% of the NRM list represented here [at LOGRTAC]"

The Wikipedia NRM list is of meaningful notability, not meaningful size. 3% cults among NRMs is a very rough calculation based on comparing 100-200 high tension cults listed in the French Report (unofficial translation) with 3000-5000 mostly unknown USA "cults" reported by Prof. Margaret Singer, 1995. If the vast majority of Singer's "cults" are unknown, they are low tension NRMs rather than Stark and Bainbridge high tension cults. If NRMs/cults could be counted globally, the cult percentage of NRMs would surely be even lower.

Jayen466 (08:31): "Now there is much more that can be said about AA and Wikipedia than that they are "cults", but there's no room to do so."

Saying more in the sense of commentary about any group is not the purpose of the article. It's an index to literature for further research on appearances of c-u-l-t (that aren't fan-cults or a few other meanings in which global citizens are little interested). Wilson's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature also does not comment on its indexed articles.

Jayen466 (08:31): "How does that approach an NPOV summary of available sources?"

It's not a summary, it's an index of references.

Jayen466 (08:31): "doesn't this list have an inherent bias by selecting as its criterion for inclusion the application of a pejorative label"

No, because the pejorative issue is external to the list of references – references to places the pejorative is sourced.

Compare List of events named massacres. All people agree that massacres exist, but all people don't agree that their historic event is a massacre (since that pejoratively labels the side that lived to have the most complaining descendants).

Wikipedia does report notable crimes, notable lawsuits, and even notable personal embarrassments. The only obvious alternative to listing notable, pejorative things is some sort of 'Pollyannapedia', which Wikipedia currently is not.

Fairness is not necessarily the same as neutral-point-of-view. Something that seems fair but not required to counteract media bias (if any in a given case), without compromising the NPOV reporting, was being worked on at the time of the AfD – denial links. These are links to groups' websites home page or their specific page, if any, where they deny being a cult. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links to groups' websites home page or their specific page, if any, where they deny being a cult This is a ridiculous suggestion, and more primary source mischief. Jayen466 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3000-5000 mostly unknown USA "cults" reported by Prof. Margaret Singer Strange argument. If Singer referred to these 3000 to 5000 groups as cults, then ipso facto they already qualify for being included in this "list of cults". Yet you are trying to tell me somehow "they are not cults." Jayen466 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an index to literature for further research The New York Post is hardly "research literature". For those interested in media reporting on cults, it is a primary source, and we are not here to provide primary source collections for scholars. Jayen466 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - providing a list of groups simply because they have been identified as a cult in the media is hardly a standard of value. I suspect one could find any church being identified as a cult by someone else in the media. I would submit the list may not be maintained because so many groups would be identified as a cult in some newspaper article. When you can label the Roman Catholic Church as a cult, exactly what is the value of the standard? Does the media source just have to record that a group has been accused as such or does the media source have to demonstrate the accused group is an actual cult? By what definition of cult does the media source have to use? Is it only destructive cults, violent cults, non-mainstream doctrinal positions, the members of just too weird; exactly what definition is appropriate? The term "cult" has no agreement as to definition by anyone much less the media. The list is meaningless because the term is meaningless. It is used most often to belittle, besmirch, and deride groups by anti-cultists; unfortunately they are not the sole users of the word nor do they own the definition. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "cult" has no agreement as to definition by anyone much less the media."

That is a groups' propaganda myth. The list of definitions appears under Cult#Definitions. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive range of definitions listed there rather proves the point that there is "no agreement". Unless you just mean that there is agreement that the word can have a lot of different meanings! John Campbell (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, there is agreement that c-u-l-t has a number of different meanings. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance give a figure of about eight agreed-on homonym meanings. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23 entries for a definition of cult??? and you want to claim that it is a myth? What do you mean by a "group's propaganda myth". Which group are you referring to? Do you have any source, any where, that says there is a single, clear definition that is understood by the term cult? Of course not. That definition may exist in your own mind and in the minds of other anti-cultists, but it clearly does not exist in academia, the media, or the world culture.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Which group are you referring to?"

The ones with the most money.

"a single, clear definition"

No, because it's a single spelling rather than a single word.

The 23 listed include several similar or overlapping dictionary entries that differ mostly to satisfy copyright requirements; but, being reliable-source dictionaries, they are all agreed-on variations of 8-some multiple-homonym meanings.

The point is they are all agreed-on as to definition.

The c-u-l-t word set analogizes to an 8-string guitar that can play both sweet and sour notes, where each string is a basic homonym meaning, and the fret stops are the dictionary variations on each basic meaning. Each string tuning and each fret-note position is distinct and agreed on in most of the world, yet playing an 8-string guitar is not easy. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep List is cited and has clear criteria. Complies with all list guidelines. Personal objections and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove an article. --neon white talk 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone needs to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT or at least ban it from use in AfD discussions since it ends up being used as a lazy and highly judgmental non-point pretty much every time someone invokes it. No offense but these are not "personal objections" and this list is a sourcing nightmare. The issue of media bias is a well documented scholarly consensus--hardly a personal preference of some kind.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One can also imagine List of people referred to as stupid adhering to all list guidelines, being cited, and having clear but seemingly randomly-chosen criteria like the new list of criteria for the present article. (Why two media sources? Why not four or seven? Labelling a group a "cult" is no small deal.) Townlake (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why two media sources?"

I don't know for sure. Two media sources has been a very slowly evolving consensus of many editors over a period of several years.

I was originally for multiple sources when part of the Washington Post archive went down and a group member made a quite reasonable fairness complaint because of it. But the multiple-sources draft criterion at the time was complicated, so the other editors may have polled against it for that reason. Also, at the time the media list was shorter, so two sources might have trivialized the list.

Since there was no rule against posting multiple sources, editors continued to add them until eventually most entries had at least two sources. At some point it became easy to implement two sources as a media-list criterion requirement.

The single source I'll miss most is:

• Contemporary architecture (INTBAU)

Twentieth Century Architecture as a Cult by Nikos A. Salingaros

...IIRC, a brilliant piece of cultic research exposing the modernist architecture movement from the viewpoint of the wealthy-traditionalist building agenda. I remember a short debate as to whether INTBAU's 33-member group of international moguls, who owned or controlled a significant fraction of all the large-building wealth in the world, could be considered a basis for vetting this magazine as an adequately fact-checked reliable source. The clicher was INTBAU's headline patron - The Prince of Wales. Milo 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources? Who's criteria is that? Do we have sources that describe such criteria? Or is this just an arbitrary criteria invented by Wikipedia editors? If that is the case, why not 4, or 7, or 13 sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Milo, everything else about this AfD aside, that was some entertaining reading there. Thanks for the background and the chuckle. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I dont think Neon white has understood my deletion reason. This list indiscrimanetely jumbles together groups that have been described as cults in completely different contexts, and using completely different meanings of the word. Imagaine there was a list of things described as funny, which jumbled together things described as funny ha ha and funny peculiar. That list would, of course, be completely useless. This list has the same problem - the word cult has several meanings, from small tightly knit religious group, to popular phenomenon, to a homicidal group. Jumbling them together creates a list which is completely useless. The subject is adequately covered by other articles, so this list should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The doesnt really matter. It is up to the reader of the article to make decisions on the quality of sources not editors of the article. Articles are only required to be verifiable, they make no claims to be the truth. This topic is encyclopedic, it has been studied academically, 'people referred to as stupid' has not. The sources should be academic ones and not media based ones in my opinion but this is a content issue and not a reason for deletion. I have never seen an afd where more comments have been made based soley on personal objections to the content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a very appropriate guideline to remember. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a sorry excuse for a non-point that gets bandied about when people are unwilling to take the time to understand the substance of someone else's (often several, even a majority of someone else's) arguments. The guideline should be deleted or banned from AfD discussions, where it usually rears its ugly head. If you are interested in covering this topic in a way consistent with the scholarship on the subject then you support a very different list. Please see the talk page of this AfD for a discussion about one version of such a list. When I proposed a list to that end the keep supporters here wanted none of it because their agenda is not to pander to scholarship, but instead to glorify the supposedly straight reportage of the media. Also please see the several other editors who suggest another scholarly alternative already available List of new religious movements. Claiming that this is just a bloated content dispute fueled by "personal objections" is quite frankly insulting.PelleSmith (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some branches of scholarship examine the direct impact of the social movements frequently still called "cults". Other branches of scholarship have more interest in wider societal attitudes to the new, the innovative and the exotic. The current article does not restrict itself exclusively to either attitude -- and this broad attitude counts as a virtue. The current article also attempts to subsume at least echoes of popular-culture sources, and that too redounds to its credit. -- The other article: List of new religious movements, has its pleasures too, but some merit subsists in grouping together at some level political cults, psycho-cults and biz-kults -- all of which exist in numbers -- alongside the more obviously spiritually-oriented orgs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are willing to support an entry that actually uses scholarship to elucidate the social processes at work in "cult accusations" or "cult labeling" (see my suggestions on the talk page) I see no point in your repeated mention of the value of a list that does so. The current list is not of such value, and that is a very big part of the problem. The current list simply lists cult labels and links to news sources that have used the label. The fact that you understand the social processes at work does not in any way mean that the average reader does--in fact we have to assume they DON'T. It also links to a poorly written section on cult labeling and the media in another entry. My suggestion tries to deal with this particular problem, and attempts to elucidate the social dynamics at work for the reader. If we compared an contrasted media portrayal with scholarship on the same groups, with a preface summing up the cultural politics here, we would be informing our readers. I'm sorry but while I agree that there is usefulness to a list like the one you are talking about, you're simply not describing the current list.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists by their nature can tend towards the superficial and the generalized. By all means let's supplement them with analysis and linked commentary -- perhaps in separate articles. But right now we have a dynamic list, and proposals to abolish it put in jeopardy some of the more prized features of that list: its width of scope and its precisely defined criteria. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article to which I contributed considerably in the past both in talk and content, has had recurring and unsolved problems mainly WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, resulting in perennial dispute tags. Despite claims that this is not a List of cults, it clearly is as per the redirect. No chance as it stands now to be an article that can be compliant with our core policies, and listsare articles and have to abide by the core principles of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis and point of view are both content issues and not a reason for deletion. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are severe WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV problems, which have proved unsolvable despite several attempts by experienced editors over the last few years. I think in this case, they represent valid reasons for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There was never a more obvious POV fork. Every religion is a cult. There is plenty of support in literature to name the Catholic Church to this list as well. Some groups just rise to a level of acceptability within society without regard to how reasonable the actual beliefs are. Scientology and Rastafarianism are religions, but some well meaning local group merely wanting to discuss spirituality may be branded a "cult"? That hardly seems fair. Believe whatever you want. JUST DON'T GIVE ANY OF THEM ANY MONEY -cult or religion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thia article does not represent a single point of view in any way. Wikipedia:Content forking#What content/POV forking is not might help. It is a valid fork of Cult according to guidelines and precedent. There is no policy reason why the cult article cannot contain a well sourced list of cults. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single pov but more than one, eh? Well there are 6 Billion p's of v in the world on this issue, so good luck with that. I should find everywhere major religions are referred to as cults. They deserve it, and should all be listed here as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major religions were listed, that's what got the article AfD'd. I don't agree with that, but weird how you seem to be voting against what you say is your own position. (checks calendar – aha, full moon begins today) Milo 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real difference between a "cult" and "religion" except communicating acceptance or rejection. That's POV Plain and Simple. I certainly would prefer that they ALL be called cults, but that isn't going to happen. Better we call them what the adherents wish to be called. (This is basic respect, btw).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatically, one can call people/orgs to their face by their chosen designation. but encyclopedically, one can question whether the Democratic People's Republic of Korea counts as "democratic", whether the United States of Mexico remains thoroughly "united", and whether the Church of Scientology operates as a "church" as much as a business or as a psychological school. Such questioning promotes a neutral point of view in a wider sense. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This topical and perennially popular and much-editd article (unlike some suggested non-existent straw-man article-titles) does precisely what its title suggests: it lists groups which (quotable) people have referred to as cults. It has developed (by intense internal discussion) evolving criteria of definition of its chosen subject-matter. It does not correspond to any person's favorite or unfavorite list of what that person might consider a cult (or even a "destructive cult'), so much of the turmoil pointing out alleged discrepancies or "ridiculous" juxtapositions has no relevance to the proposed discussion about deletion. -- Appeals for scholarly re-casting by-pass the intrinsically pop-culture aspects of discussion of cults -- a legitimate topic in its own right and one that the "Media" section of our article addresses systematically and usefully. -- People who want to delete the link from the "List of cults" page have a discussion-page Talk:List of cults on which to debate that matter. -- Given the debate on the 1920 cutoff date, I would favor encouraging dates of reference alongside each listed item within the article, just as we highlight sources in the article. -- The article provides a useful research entree to anyone interested in popular moral panics, loose language-use and hive minds. It has limited direct use as a source on culthood (that role belongs elsewhere). Its audience extends far beyond the non-existent or tendentiously invented "Anti-cult movement". -- Calls for steering the article in the direction of or into a renaming involving "New Religious Movements" fail to address the questionable relevance of religious labels to many "cults". The dividing-lines between "religious" and "non-religious" can become very debatable. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Re your first sentence - the last "cult" in the media list right now is there because one media source references anonymous, unquoted skeptics who called the group a cult at some time before the article was published. I haven't gone through and looked at all of the groups and every source, but I cherry picked one entry and found that. Just sayin'. Townlake (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • When one deals with popular culture (like "cults" and the media) one need have no fear of "anonymous, unquoted skeptics" -- one can just process their opinionating (appropriately summarized by reputable sources) like any other. Just because a labelling apppears in Wikipedia doesn't make it so. But the labelling process itself(as opposed to the label) can remain worthy of note. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The media section hardly addresses anything "systematically and usefully." Would you care to explain what you mean lest we take it as empty flattery of that jumble of mish mash? If you think this list should be a useful resource on popular moral panics then why not support some actual precision. What on earth, in the current list, makes any connection to "moral panics"? Also, to Townlake's point about your first sentence, these references are not filled with "cult" labeling by several "quotable" people. The entry linked at the top of this page is almost unrecognizable in your post.PelleSmith (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • An alphabetical list uses the alphabet (and cross-references within it) systematically. It largely avoids favoritism and judgments by forcing names and titles into alphabetical order. Anyone familiar with that alphabetical order can find the reultant list useful: comprehensive, unbiased in structure, and enhanced (in this case) with highlighted references suggesting authenticity (or otherwise) of the sources. -- I know of no reference to moral panic in recent versions of the article, but insofar as it features media-driven labelling of "cults" and (by the implications of that naming) of their allegedly nefarious and socially questionable practices, the relationship to the study of the raw material of moral panic seems evident. -- I don't know exactly to what you refer in isolating "the entry linked at the top of this page", so I cannot usefully comment on that. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entry linked at the top of the page is List of groups referred to as cults. You are capable of understanding the raw material, vis-a-vis various social processes. The average reader is not. The average reader only sees the media calling a group a cult. That is exactly the problem. I've suggested alternate lists that use scholarship to elucidate exactly this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • If the average reader merely "sees the media calling a group a cult" (rather than "group X = cult") then we have fulfilled the promise of the List of groups referred to as cults and I see no further problem in that respect. (The average reader, I trust, also has a degree of healthy skepticism of the media, and may also note that the article distinguishes academic and media labeling.) -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not only that, but just read this cross-namespace gem List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Reliability_of_sources which cites a Wikipedia guideline in the body of an article (!!!) for an indea how this article has degraded into a WP:SYN nightmare. I mean what would you call this piece of unsourced and unattributed text: This list of references for further research, cannot of itself reliably establish any harmful or beneficial attributes. The sources referenced must be reliable sources, with the acceptable fact-checking required for all articles. Fact-checking does not imply that referenced opinions are either true or false, only that they are correctly attributed. A nightmare, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Due to the nature of the topic of "cults" and to the evolved nature of the subject matter ("groups referred to as") the article has a need to set boundaries and define limitations -- and it does so in detail, self-referentially, for it cannot do otherwise. Casual readers who want to know whether X "is" a cult get warned off or drawn in. People with set ideas about the definition of a cult as something harmful get reminded of the over-simplicity of their ways. And anyone who wants to believe in a black-and-white world of "true" and "false" receives a reminder of the rich variety and flexibility of Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nonexistent anti-cult movement? Pray tell, how can there be so much written about cults and not be an anti-cult movement? I am baffled; you even refer to the article and yet deny their existence. When you talk to Hank next time, just ask him if there are anti-cultists in the world today. Ignorance is acceptable, but conscious denial of facts is beyond words. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just because something has an article in Wikipedia doesn't mean to say that that something actually exists (note especially the article on the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Nobody doubts the existence of people opposed to one or more of the organizations which they perceive as "cults". It does not follow that a "movement" exists, with its connotations of organization and shared attitudes. As the Wikipedia article on the Anti-cult movement states: "The indiscriminate use of this expression for any and all opposition to cults makes a very varied collective of independent individuals and groups look like an organized group or like organized groups." And see the tallk-page of that article (Talk:Anti-cult movement for the case against the existence of an alleged "movement". -- I myself reserve judgement on whether an "Anti-cult movement" actually exists -- hence my use of the formula 'the non-existent or tendentiously invented "Anti-cult movement"'. -- I may get called ignorant, but my accusers may have to use words to do that. It would help me if they did so. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a simple person. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, certainly smells like a duck; it is a duck. One might propose that they are all live in wholly independent, isolated spheres doing what they do, but that type of environment in a social context does not exist on earth. The Restorationist movement is a group of churches motivated by similar beliefs, but that is all that binds them together. In reality they are disparate groups doing their own "thing"; and yet it is a movement. There does not have to be a Grand Pubba to be a called a movement. Its is a duck. Ignorance would not be an allegation, but I could be easily convinced of looking like an ostrich with its head in the sand. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The case exists for regarding the Anti-cult movement as a movement. A case also exists for stating that no anti-cult movement, qua movement, exists. I've pointed to the debate simply in order to remind us that the debate exists, not to re-litigate that issue here and now. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relister's comment: I think after six AfDs it's worth waiting five more days to see whether we can arrive at a consensus this time.  Sandstein  18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV listing which names a number of world religions as cults but avoids pointing the finger at one notable religion originating in the middle east which does not tolerate criticism, but which has been widely described as a cult. Then arbitrary criteria are set up as to number of media sources required, criteria which are documented nowhere else in Wikipedia. The Bahá'í Faith is listed because Al Ahram says "Bahá'í beliefs differ from Islam." It was not an improvement when previously Gordon Melton was somehow made the unelected rulegiver of Wikipedia to dictate 1920 as a cutoff. As unencyclopedic and arbitrary as List of stupid people or List of evil people based on 2 media sources calling them that. Edison (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The list "names" no entity as a cult: it merely references that other people have labelled various bodies as cults. Rectification of alleged omissions or inclusions invited. -- Comparing non-existent lists of "evil people" or of "stupid people" with a list of third-party references to the use of the worrd 'cult' appears inappropriate. Even a list of cultic orgs would have a different order of magnitude to a list of people. And the article does not list cultic orgs: it lists referenced, alleged cultic orgs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with rename to List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1920 onward (Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC20") This sub-topic of "cult", takes perhaps eight-fold more development time than other articles, inclusively because eight homonyms of c-u-l-t have to be considered for every concept-related decision to prevent or limit homonymic conflict. There is no official time limit for article improvement at Wikipedia. Do the following to get back on track to an always imperfect, periodically-improved, and eventualism-progressable article:
  

1. Rename LOGRTAC to include the 1920+ rule in the title (lists groups founded 1920 onward).

2. Create a second article to include a "1919-" rule in the title (which lists only groups founded 1919 or earlier).

3. Create a third article to include only cult followings (fan-cults of popular culture).

Milo 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited Milo 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment I don't think this means re-adding or creating new "recommendations" here. While this isn't a vote you should only have one "recommendation" on the page, and you now have two. Above you recommend "speedy close or keep" and here you recommend "keep with rename". I believe one of the two should be withdrawn or changed into something neutral like "comment".PelleSmith (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - there is no reason to restate your !vote in this section. This is section is for additional editors to voice their opinion, hopefully, to aid the closing admin is pinning down consensus. Milo, please refactor your comment so it does't not appear to be "double voting". Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the guiderule for relisted AfD's? If it's a new AfD, the old votes don't count. But thanks for pointing the possibility for confusion. On the old vote, I've marked <s>Speedy Close or Keep</s> (keep vote moved to relisted AfD below). Milo 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are no "votes" in AfDs either way. You make a recommendation. Also where did you get the idea that this was a "new AfD"? Its the same AfD, it was relisted to get more time. If it was "new" don't you think we'd be starting from a blank slate? Please remove one of your two "keeps" ... you can keep all the text around it, but you can't have two keep recommendations. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The marking I described above apparently got lost during an edit conflict. Hopefully it's fixed now.

I'm a d-democrat so I vote anyway. Technically AfD is a vote which gets counted, but the for-against count is balanced against "good answers" posted by experienced or creative editors, to estimate some approximation of consensus including no consensus. This system is an experimental attempt to prevent complex issues from being obfuscated by partisans, and/or confusion-voted by earnest but lightly-informed passersby. This LOGERTAC AfD is a textbook example of both voting problems. Milo 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "[t]echnically AfD is a vote which gets counted", but individual recommendations here are not "votes". Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." An entry may be deleted or kept despite a majority of recommendations saying "keep" or "delete", especially if there is no argument, or a bad argument for either recommendation. It is quite clearly, not intended to be a vote. It is highly recommended to have a real argument for this very reason.PelleSmith (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the discussion here, and that's the main criterion for keeping an article. Any problems should be fixed by editing, though the whole article is very thoroughly referenced and I don't see any obvious issues with it. The criteria for inclusion are very clearly spelled out, so it's a perfectly good list (per WP:CLN). Klausness (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think anyone is saying that cults aren't a notable topic, unless I missed something. This debate is about whether a free-standing list of groups "referred to as cults" under unique WP-editor-created criteria should be here. Townlake (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You've apparently linked to WP:NOR without reading it. It contains nothing about "WP-editor-created criteria". Editors are required to create criteria for lists. Milo 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct that "WP-editor-created criteria" does not appear as a direct quote from WP:OR, and that lists need to define what they are. The rest of this debate has already been conducted with vigor above, by people with reading skills far superior to my own, and I don't think you I or anyone benefit from starting it anew here here. Although I guess we do have four more days to kill now... Townlake (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The definition of Cult is far too weak to be taken seriously. It allows for any Organisation, Group or collection of people (even those without recognisable residence or group beliefs) to be listed purely to draw attention to the fact that some reporter somewhere once slipped the term cult into a dicussion about them. I am all for naming and shaming religions as no better than cults, but this list is absolutely pathetic. Also, take note (Comment) that though it isn't my place to judge everyone else's comments, it appears that all the Keep arguments, as far as i could tell want to keep the article on grounds that it is notable or can be cleaned up. Taking into consideration the absurdity of requirements to enter the list, it seems unlikely that the topic could possibly useful as no single definition of cult is encapsulated, and therefore the list only serves to be as wide as possible in order to avoid WP:POV problems. On that note, the definition of Cult, as with all thing's usually defined by unrelated legal documentatio is far to Individual to possible compress into a list, and an article on the subject would be more than enough. Finally, i see absolutely no purpose in such a list, as given all of the above and the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for lists, it cannot possbly serve to improve the wikipedia experience or provide service to anyone, which i believe should be the primary goal of incusion. Thankyou - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The hard-fought definition of "cult" used in the article serves only for the scope of that article itself, as the introductory material ("Criteria for inclusion") explains. The definition has evolved to meet the needs of Wikipedia's editors and readers -- but by all means set up a better article to run in parallel and using a completely different definitional basis. -- The characterization that "some reporter somewhere once slipped the term cult into a dicussion" does not do justice to the serious press or to the scholarly commentators included in our article. -- Characterization of the article's "list" (which of its lists?) as "pathetic" needs careful elaboration and justification. -- Discussion of the variant and individual definitions of "cult" have no place in regard to the article, which does not deal with "cults", but with uses of the label/word "cult" -- a large, significant and often-overlooked difference. -- On the merits of lists in Wikipedia see WP:LISTS and linked articles, especially WP:CLS. These internal documents suggest that a list can "possbly serve to improve the wikipedia experience" and "provide service". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitions of "cult" certainly have tangential import to this list. Of direct relevance is some discussion of the process of cult labeling, something you seem to agree with. Extrapolating from your own suggestions all over this AfD, this list could be more clearly called List of cult labels applied in the media. As such, the various and variable usage of the term cult, in the media, as applied to these various groups, is of importance. Milo likes to devalue the sociological significance of this issue by using the ridiculous notion of homonymic conflict, suggesting that this is about definitional differences, as opposed to context laden usage differences. I call BS on that move. Pedant17 if you really support what you claim, how about you join the talk page discussion about alternate lists that may actually be informative in the manner you suggest?PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Thanks for the suggestion re the Talk-page; the article has returned to my set of "items of interest". -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wow, that is the longest "reponse" i have ever see that doesn't actually respond to one thing i said. Your point about the definition being in the article was covered in my first comment, both in my saying that it is POV and in that it is also too Vague. Everything from then on seems to just be you quoting me without making any points, so it is quite hard to respond. First you mention the Press, seemingly you decide the definition of press, independent of Country or Politics, as otherwise my point stands (Of course, you only mean acredited american reporters?). I didn't say the list was dealing with cults, i dealt with the aricles text in batches. Infact, as you quoted, my words were precisely, "the term cult". And whatever you were trying to say about lists, you forgot to add context to article in question as you simply linked a page about usefullness of lists and completely ignored my open question of how useful this specific article (List of groups referred to as cults is to people browsing wikipedia. Of course the question is somewhat rhetorical, for, as i have pointed out from numerous angles, this list and the definition of cult are far too Vague to suitably service anyone. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk)
      • The label of "POV" applied to the defintion of "cult" used in the article has no merit. The article's introductory "Criteria for inclusion" effectively state, up front, that for the purposes of inclusion in the article itself we will use (within certain practical limits) whatever relaable sources have used. That covers the gamut of various points of view and displays strict neutrality about selecting between those points of view. -- The label of "vague" applied to the definition of "cult" used in the article has little merit. The article's introductory "Criteria for inclusion" spell out in detail what criteria editors have used. The criteria remain flexible: they have changed to some extent and anyone finding them too vague can participate in refining them further. -- My comment on the press responded to the previous mention of "some reporter somewhere" and attempted to point out that we can sometimes take journalists (some of them with by-lines) seriously to some extent; and similarly with academics. I have no intention of restricting my scope to "accredited American reporters" -- that would patently violate efforts against WP:BIAS. I note with particular approval the inclusion of the BBC as a respected source in the article. -- I stand by my generic statements: the article 'does not deal with "cults", but with uses of the label/word "cult" -- a large, significant and often-overlooked difference'. -- I stand by my contention that lists in general have acknowledged usefulness in Wikipedia, as opposed to the previous claim that "Wikipedia is not a place for lists". -- I still await explanation as to how we can fairly characterize any of the article's lists as "pathetic". -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just saying my points have no merit, doesn't suddenly make your opinion fact, or points correct, especially when you are wrong. Now, as you don't know already, i will elaborate on what POV means. POV, stands for "Point of View". In the context of this article we are stating that the inclusion on the list is based upon a "Point of View" that makes the list unusable and unhelpful. Considering the fact that you require a list of standards for inclusion that goes beyond the simple boundry inclusion rules of most lists and actually have to define (from the authors "Point of View") "grouns referred to as cults" is the very definition of a "Point of View". So i think in reality, where people discuss and take on board other people's comments, saying it is POV does infact have quite a bit of merit. As for the oppsite angle, in that it is vague, well, how you can deny this is beyong me, especially considering some of your other posts on this page. Any list whose inclusion allows no stipulation for the actual status of the groups as cults, where Major globally recognised religions are listed alongside Groups with no Unified beliefs and where the Inclusion rules attempt to cater to every signle person, is incredibly vague, and therefore, very useless as a list. I can't think (so please do offer ideas), as to where this list could possibly be useful to anyone. It provides no content on the subject, is unrelated to any article featuring content of the topic of "groups referred to as cults", and is definitely too vague to provide a concise list from any Poing of View. "Spelling out criteria", is of course the problem, there exists no accepted definition of cult, other than the one that differs between countires (the legal one), and more importantly you criteria doesn't set limits, it simply spells out what is in a list with no intended audience, which is of no use on wikipedia. As for refining them, that simply sets more limits on the POV of this article and will serve as a ground for repeated editing to no further improvement.
        • Your comments on reporters are fair, however, as you yourself mention, in an attempt to not be Biased, you have to take into account other countires reporters, and therefore politics and cultural views. In Germany, the Cult of Scientology is legally banned and defined as a cult, to question that as a reporter is highly irregular, however, in the name of no Bias, you would take their words on face value in order to not discriminate against any reporter, and thereforethe inclusion is no longer based upon a clear definition but upon each countries conflicting politics. I don't completely disagree with the use of lists, however, each list needs to be able to prove it's own usefulness, not in presenting views, opinions or even facts, but in presenting information to the readers. This list continues to, and can't possible stop being, utterly useless to a reader coming from any point of view, unless they are researching information for a Major in Press References to groups referred to as things. As for Pathetic, simply go into the list with a number of differing views, that of the researcher of cults, that simply wishing to know about the references to cults, etc, any way you look at or consider these lists, they seem, for lack of a better description that doesn't out right insult it, "pathetic". They list Major religions alongside groups for suffering alcoholics, Brainwashed cults, alongside honest small time religions, and even more groups unrelated to religion.
        • I don't dispute the lists criteria, or that it lists those groups named and shamed by reporters (of the authors choice), simply that is serves absolutely no useful purpose. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In Germany, the Cult of Scientology is legally banned and defined as a cult Please read Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion#Germany. Jayen466 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fascinating... I'd love to see what you read there that doesn't back up my point. Fair enough my fact was not correct, but so what, it was an example, and the content in the link you yourself provided shows that despite my precise reference being wrong, References to Cults in the media are affected heavily by Politics. Go be anally retentive about facts on articles, where it matters, not in the middle of a point that doesn't change either way. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too much work for too little gain. There is no way to make sure that editors don't band together in a witch hunt. The article constantly swings from nasty POV to confusing gibberish. Chee Chahko (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid reasons to delete: (1) Using that first concern, all difficult-to-write articles on minor but notable subjects would have to be deleted. (2) Would you try to nontrivially edit the Calculus article? Just because it's too much work for you doesn't mean it's too much work for other editors. (3) That's a concept applicable to business practices, not GDFL encyclopedia writing. There's no official Wikipedia expense or time limit to do a lot of work for a little gain. (4) Using the second concern, all controversial articles like Abortion would have to be deleted. (5) Until the hijack of this working article, there was suspicion but not proof a of "witch hunt" (or whatever term is politically correct). Now that there's proof, the article is potentially eligible for a variety of protections from conflict-of-interest editing. If you can't help (and I know you've tried, thanks), how about at least not becoming so disillusioned and deletionist that you actively help the "witch hunters"? To do that, just strike and change your vote to "neutral". Milo 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Witch hunters"? Now there is "proof" of conflict-of-interest editing? Milo, here's a nice request to stop this insanity before it swallows you whole. This level of paranoia is both unwarranted and unhealthy. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read all the above posts again. It's not my term, and I pointed out that it was not politically correct. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All?" You mean Chee, or whoever it is?PelleSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry Milo, I've come to the conclusion that it's just too messy. It was interesting and fun to edit but I just can't support it anymore. The article either relies on a slight of hand to avoid being POV (groups REFERRED to as) or editors can't handle inclusion of cults.

The current debate about what qualifies as a group is a by-product of the above POV avoiding magic trick using the word "referred". We have to say something is referred to as a cult so someone settled on the word "group." Now the word group is an article of faith for editors who want to eliminate all their favored old cults and keep the new ones they want to "ethically" bash.

What the article feels like in the readers' minds is a list of cults in the sense of evil, mind controlling groups. That's why editors can't handle having religious devotions like the Cult of Mary or the Cult of Tea on the list. We have to think of the reader foremost in evaluating this list. I believe that because of the slippery definition of a cult the list will always be too confusing for the reader and the editor. Chee Chahko (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chee Chahko (05:35): "We have to think of the reader foremost in evaluating this list." .... "What the article feels like in the readers' minds is a list of cults in the sense of evil, mind controlling groups."

That's an interpretation of what newspapers often report, it's related to the practical cult crime-watching and correcting mandated by the French Report (unofficial translation), and therefore it's what global citizen readers expect to see. When they don't see that, editors start complaining about silliness (if they see fan-cults listed), or they get angry if theological cults (RCC, LDS, Witnesses, etc.) are co-listed with destructive cults.

This AfD appears to be a direct result of an RCC listing by an article opponent (but too young to anticipate what would happen). None of this would have happened if the 1920+ rule criterion was still in place.

Chee Chahko (05:35): "religious devotions like the Cult of Mary or the Cult of Tea"

Those are old venerations that should be on a different list: List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior. (Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")

Chee Chahko (05:35): "I believe that because of the slippery definition of a cult the list will always be too confusing for the reader and the editor."

You appear to be a first or second year college student. You haven't entirely figured out how to format posts yet (that much bold looks like shouting). Your first talk post was June 3, so you've worked on LOGRTAC – one of the more holistically complex articles at Wikipedia – for all of 18 days !

Even your name means "newcomer". You may get a vote, but you're not qualified to draw a sweeping conclusion like "the list will always be too confusing".

Just because you don't know how to fix it, does not mean it can't be done.

How to reduce the confusion is relatively easy. The hard part is how to end run listed group members that don't want the confusion to be reduced. Previously that took about five or six editors working as a team.

You also don't have to vote even if you have an opinion. If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (all), you'll see that I was a major participant in that AfD, but cast no vote. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is really more trouble than its worth. While I would normally think that a listing of things referred to as cults by the media would have a place in an encyclopedia, it seems like there's just too much drama surrounding this particular collection. It is probably best just to do away with it entirely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worth to whom? No one asked you to edit a controversial article – it is hard work. How about not making it even harder for other pro-reporting encyclopedists?

To do as you suggest means progressively ceding COI-contested Wikipedia articles to the bias and manipulation of outside interests. In this case it's even worse to do so, since many of the reported groups have broken laws, which they wish to hide from potential recruits.

And remember LOGRTAC is just an index for further research. Would you tolerate it if groups stormed your local public library and removed all copies of the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature 'because a divine revelation told them to'? Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply section 1)

To the project. Issues of UNDUE and NPOV aside, it's a very weak criterion. I don't think it really jumps over the bar of being an indiscriminate collection. Perhaps if new criteria were added (i.e, so many references in journals/abstracts, so many references in high-profile news) ... at this point, its just too easy for someone with an axe to grind in a local newspaper to get something that could cause harm to that group that may not be dersevant of it. As it stands now, there's nothing to prevent such things. If they were added, I'd probably reconsider my position. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply section 2)

No, it means progressively enforcing neutral point of view and keeping the weight of sources and their statements in mind. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply section 3)

If the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature contained a "List of people referred to as satanists", and the only criterion for being added to the index was "someone somewhere referred to them as a satanist", then yes, I would. In fact, I would encourage it. I would also write to the publisher. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your posts out from inside mine. Context-damaging threads can get started that way. Pardon if it leaves your reply points hard to follow. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What....? If you don't intend to break to another point, then don't start a new paragraph. I have absolutely no idea what's going on now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting something in print don't make it so. And summarizing what people have put in print don't make it so either -- it merely contributes to open discussion and gives everyone a chance to jeer or cheer the compiler. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOGRTAC doesn't do summaries, just links and quotes. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to elaborate on the approach of my claim that "summarizing what people have put in print don't make it so ... -- it merely contributes to open discussion and gives everyone a chance to jeer or cheer the compiler". Real people encounter and have experiences with regard to what they may decide to term "cults". (Note that these real people often have sincerely held opinions, although we sometimes dismiss them as "anonymous", "skeptics" and/or "minorities", etc.). Then scholars and the media, bless their hearts, do their scholarly or media duty and reflect and analyze and compile popular opinions within society and put them into print. Then and only then does the Wikipedia List of groups referred to as cults come along and summarize/cite the stuff which the media and the scholars have put in print. -- The process should work like that. If our article sometimes strays from its role in the overall process, our editors try to correct that. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. So we don't need BLP, then. I assume you've never heard the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a mistake is made, WP:BLP has no practical application to a list with only links and quotes. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons has minimal impact on the listing of alleged cults -- even their gurus tend to emerge as fair-game public figures per WP:WELLKNOWN. -- I can confirm that I have indeed heard the quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that source X has associated group Y with cultdom requires only the standard Wikipedia insistence on sourced verifiability, though quotations can also help give a context. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where would we preserve all the valuable material, gathered and refined and defended by scores of Wikipedia editors over the years? -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Escalation_of_commitment and Sunk cost fallacy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. Given that User:Celarnor appears to agree with me that "a listing of things referred to as cults by the media would have a place in an encyclopedia", it really does behove us to consider where best to place that material. One proposal to take material into the sphere of New Religious Movements would leave some data without an obvious home and would impede cross-comparisons. Hence my query as to the fate of the totality of the "investment" in information. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation_of_commitment requires continuing the present course of action, so it does not apply to preservation, a different course of action.

Preservation is a form of cost recovery. A sunk cost cannot be recovered, so there is no Sunk cost fallacy in preservation. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also read BETTERHERETHANTHERE and LOSE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BETTERHERETHANTHERE does not apply, since deleters don't want to move the article information to somewhere else.

LOSE applies only in the special case mentioned, which reads, "Note that this argument ["Don't lose the information"] does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion..." Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced by Pendant and will keep my vote for the same reasons as Celarnor and Jossi. Chee Chahko (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chee it wasn't Pedant who responded to your own "delete" rationale, but Milo. Better go back and have a look. Though its nice to see your enthusiastic support of other delete voters.PelleSmith (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor had voiced my argument but in a much more eloquent manner. Pendant argued against it. You'll be a much more useful thinker when your spidey senses stop tingling. Chee Chahko (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the annual AfD, there really hasn't been much drama associated with the list. Considering the topic, it's actually been remarkably peaceful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "More trouble than it's worth" and "too much drama" are not valid deletion reasons. The list topic is notable (otherwise we wouldn't be having this huge discussion here), and the criteria for inclusion are very clear. This is something that people might well look to an encyclopedia for (e.g. if they were trying to find background for a discussion about cults), and the article editors seem to have gone out of their way to enforce NPOV. Articles on controversial topics will always be, well, controversial, but a genuine encyclopedia can't throw out topics because of that. Klausness (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'More trouble than it's worth' and 'too much drama' refer to the confusion for readers and editors. This is because of the inherant weakness in the definition of a cult. The article constantly swings from nasty POV to confusing gibberish, both valid reasons. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give specific examples of the "nasty POV" and "confusing gibberish"? My impression is that the editors of the article have worked very hard to set very clear guidelines for list inclusion and to enforce those guidelines. For articles on controversial topics to keep from turning into an ugly confusing mess, editors have to put in a lot of work, but the editors of this article appear to have done that. I don't see how this article could cause confusion for editors and readers. Klausness (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

• Delete per the arguments I raised in the previous AfDs. This list is synthesis out of primary sources and violates NOR if taken strictly. It was objected, that lists aren't restricted by WP:NOR, but I beg to differ. Also the one-drop-rule of inclusion is rather silly. --Pjacobi (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the material in the article (if not the majority) cites secondary sources: academic studies and journalistic reportage based on interviews and on primary and/or secondary research. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Pjacobi.

Pjacobi (20:58): "primary sources"

I've consulted WP:PSTS, and I'm unaware of any primary sources on the current list.

Pjacobi (20:58): "list is synthesis"

WP:SYN requires a conclusion for synthesis to occur. There are no conclusions at LOGRTAC, only links and quotes.

Pjacobi (20:58): "It was objected, that lists aren't restricted by WP:NOR, but I beg to differ."

If by "restricted by" you mean 'does policy apply to LOGRTAC', then yes, of course it does. But that's not an issue. The claim is, 'WP:NOR policy has no practical effect on LOGRTAC'.

Pjacobi (20:58): "violates NOR if taken strictly"

"taken strictly" usually means 'plain text reading'. By a plain text reading of WP:NOR, a list article content that consists only of unoriginal links and quotes can't be original research.

Pjacobi (20:58): "Also the one-drop-rule of inclusion is rather silly."

That's changed since you last checked. Two sources are now required for groups listed in the media section. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two drop rule is is silly too. It doesn't demonstrate a concensus among the media. And large conglomerates often recycle their stories so the exact wording is spread across the media but has a single source. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted WP:PSTS, and I'm unaware of any primary sources on the current list.: The relevant sentence in WP:PSTS is, "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic" Media reporting is the topic of the major part of the article; hence the media reports are primary sources. A secondary source would, e.g., be an academic source evaluating or commenting on media reporting.

In addition, in order not to fall foul of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, this list would have to be called: List of groups referred to as cults in two or more media reports. Instead, what we have is List of cults, which redirects here, and List of groups referred to as cults, without qualification as to the frequency of such references, and as to other terms applied to the same groups. That jump from "I can find two media sources who have called this group a cult" ergo "this group is a cult and belongs in List of cults (= List of groups referred to as cults)" is a text book example of WP:SYNTH. The silliness of List of groups referred to as cults in two or more media reports, which is what this is, is obvious. We might as well have

• List of people referred to as sexist in two media sources,
• List of people referred to as racist in two media sources,
• List of Christian groups referred to as fundamentalist in two media sources,
• List of groups referred to as Islamic fundamentalist in two media sources,
• List of countries referred to as imperialist in two media sources,
• List of politicians referred to as fascist in two media sources,
• List of groups referred to as terrorist in two media sources,
• List of countries described in two media sources as having supported terrorists,
• List of politicians described in two media sources as having spoken a lie, etc. etc.

And it would be even more egregious then to have

• List of sexists,
• List of racists,
• List of fascist politicians,
• List of imperialist countries,
• List of lying politicians etc.

redirect to these lists. Yet this is exactly the approach implemented in this present case. Jayen466 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (19:47): "in order not to fall foul of WP:SYNTH"

Read WP:SYNTH again. It's not possible for LOGRTAC to fall foul of WP:SYNTH. Synthesis can't exist without conclusions. There are no conclusions in LOGRTAC.

The conclusion and WP:SYNTH is inherent in the titles: List of cults and List of groups referred to as cults. In the first instance, the conclusion is that the group is a cult because two media sources or one academic have referred to them as such; in the second instance, the conclusion is that the group is (generally) referred to as a cult because the requisite number of sources have used the word about them. All that the list shows is that the group has been referred to as a cult by one adacemic or two media sources. This is the same difference as the difference between Tony Blair is a liar or Tony Blair is referred to as a liar and Tony Blair has been referred to as a liar by X, Y or Z. --Jayen466 13:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (19:47): "Media reporting is the topic of the major part of the article"

No, that just plain isn't a fact. You've built a house of cards on that mistake, what with calling newspaper articles primary sources, and so on.

The topic is what the article title says it is. The media section is shell container for a type of source, not a topic.

Calling a media section a media topic, is like saying every paragraph has the topic of paragraphs. Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article title says "groups referred to as cults". That fact of being referred to is the topic of the article. The list of cites is a selective, POV-driven use of primary sources whose relevance is not supported by secondary literature. It is the same sort of strategy by which someone might select all the worst bits of the Bible to present Christianity as a cult advocating the murder of gay people. All a lot of fun, but not how encyclopedias are written. Jayen466 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what you're saying it appears that you'd prefer to have "List of cults", and just use the same sourcing requirements that we use for any Wikipedia article or list. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like List of cults any better than I would like List of lying politicians. However, if we were trying to create an article on media coverage of cults, then the proper way to source the statement that "group X is rarely/occasionally/frequently/usually/always referred to as a cult in the media" would be to find scholarly references that state precisely that, with some context; not to go hunt for two qualifying media sources. Likewise, for the lying politician, we would need a source commenting on the fact that politician X is sometimes/regularly/etc. accused of lying in the media. It still would not be appropriate to include Tony Blair, for example, in List of lying politicians, on the strength of two polemical articles in conservative newspapers that described him thus. But if we had an article on the media image of politicians as liars, then the standard for inclusion should be someone commenting on him being regularly referred to as a liar in the media, rather than one or two instances of this being the case. (And frankly, I am not even sure that would pass muster by the community as a sensible list to create. Too many POV sources. But I hope you get my drift.) Jayen466 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "list of lying politicians" is different because presumably many of them would be living people. For that reason the comparison isn't correct. The standard across Wikipedia is to require only one good source for an assertion. If a reliable source says "X is Y", when do we require a second source that comments on X's assertion in order to use it as a source for X being Y? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More direct parallels can be drawn. You could have List of nations referred to as dictatorships, List of societies said to have practiced cannibalism, List of organization claimed to have mob ties, etc. Then you'd need two media sources to be included in each.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many cults are composed of living people. ;-) Without having read the article on Tony Blair, I am pretty sure it doesn't (usually) state that "Tony Blair is a Brtish politician who is a liar", though it may well state that he has been described as such on occasion. That is a basic element of NPOV. Jayen466 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We very might well say that "Blair has been called a liar by the Sunday Times, by Lady Thacher, and by a committee of parliament" (if that were the case). Doing so would be consistent with NPOV which requires that all significant viewpoints are included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement on that point. But would that make it a good idea to include him in List of lying politicians redirecting to List of politicians referred to as liars? I don't think so.

And btw, let's not forget that a number of the cults in our list are also state-recognised religions, and are also referred to as such by various commentators. Jayen466 00:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have similar lists, such as List of political scandals. You'll find many lying politicans on that list. United States journalism scandals is pretty much a list of lying journalists. As for your second point, thre's no tension between being a cult and being a state-recognized religion. The Church of Scientology is recognized as a religion in the U.S., for example. It's pretty easy to get recognized as a church, at least in the U.S. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the equivalent of that for this present topic would be a List of cult controversies. (Btw, I think Scientologists would disagree with your last statement. It took them over 25 years of wrangling to gain that recognition.) Jayen466 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd approve of a "List of cult controversies"? Scientology is an exception. It's very rare for a group to be denied, so far as I'm aware. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would approve of that. It would probably need to give more context to each entry and be more informative than this.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would work. What is a cult controversy? Is it a controversy about whether or not the group is a cult? Is it a controversy about the behavior of the group? If it was about the behavior of the group how would you be sure that the group was a cult? Would it's inclusion be POV? Chee Chahko (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be no harder to decide than what constitutes a "scandal". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided the controversies listed meet notability criteria. --Jayen466 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is not very usefull, what it has become is a list of groups people have tried to smear as cults. - Icewedge (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icewedge. I read your recent request for adminship. The consensus seemed to be that you had made some misjudgments, partly because you had too little experience as a Wikipedian. Please consider this an example of how to make better AfD judgments by a study of issues.

Icewedge (14:33): "article is not very usefull"

• Is that a valid reason for AfD?

• Can you cite a guideline that requires articles to be useful?

• Did you first read, or at least search, this AfD page, to see if there was already an answer to that claimed issue of usefulness or utility?

• How do you know that it's not useful?

• How many of the LOGRTAC indexed news articles did you read?

• Did you read the related Cult text article?

• Do you actually know enough about cultic studies (for the academic section), or global police cultwatching (for the media section) to have an informed opinion on this billionaire-propagandized and beliefs-mythologized issue?

No? Ok, start with Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults is useful, found early up on this page.

And remember, other than the stated purpose use in #1, "further research", other possible uses are neither the purpose nor an endorsment by Wikipedia that it should be used in the listed ways. Arguing that the article should be deleted because one doesn't like the ways it could be used amounts to arguing for censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored.

Btw, the very size of this AfD page approaching 200K should have given you pause, that giving an unstudied reason for your vote would not be wise.

Icewedge (14:33): "it has become is a list of groups people have tried to smear as cults"

Sure, let's work through the "smear as cults" claim. I'm guessing that as a groups defense claim it got started during the 1970s, prior to the public cult debate being settled by the Jonestown mass suicides and Congressman/media murders in 1978.

M-W.com "smear": 3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization

So, if a group meets the definition of a cult, it's technically not a smear. But since there at least eight different kinds of cults, relevance of the definition is also a possible smear factor.

What global governments and their police consider relevant to the possible cult nature of groups is cult-watching a pattern of minor human rights crimes against members – abuses, sometimes sexual, or illegal labor exploitations, often committed against children (see unofficial French Report translation).

Do cults as defined try to hide these crimes from the public? Yes. When the public finds out and tells their neighbors, is that a smear? No.

What global citizens consider relevant to the possible cult nature of groups who live nearby to them, is the definition that "cult" is a group with beliefs nontraditional to the surrounding culture and in high tension with that culture. (Stark and Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult formation (1985); see Sect.)

When the public finds out and tells their neighbors, is that a smear? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the group did, if anything, to cause the tension.

At this point, there's no substitute for a study of cases to find out if groups might have been smeared. How does one do that? Go to LOGRTAC and click on index links to read news archived off-wiki. (See – LOGRTAC is useful for further research.)

There are currently 85 groups with two or more cult-reference sources in the LOGRTAC media list. I've selected two pilot study cases: one that I first read last week during a criterion-compliance check and a second that I just selected using a random number generator.

---

Case study 1 (selected) The Body of Christ a.k.a. Attleboro Cult:

________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT: ONLY THIS INDEX ENTRY APPEARS AT List of groups referred to as cults:

*The Body of Christ (a.k.a. Attleboro Cult) (Boston Herald) (Boston Globe/Associated Press)

________________________________________________________________

"Former sect leader appeals conviction in son's starvation death" - 2007-09-06, Boston Globe/AP: "Jacques was under the delusional brainwashing of this cult, and he was incapable of independent thought," said Janet Pumphrey, Robidoux's appellate lawyer." "COLD-BLOODED CULT; Journal shows sect let baby starve 'in God's hands'" - 2004-02-05, Boston Herald abstract: ""Our prayers should not be for Samuel to be healed but for God's purposes to be fulfilled. This is all we can do for Samuel," cult member Rebecca Corneau wrote in a journal entry 12 days before 11- month-old Samuel Robidoux died."

Case analysis: Robidoux was convicted of murdering his 11-month-old infant by starvation. There were at least two other family members convicted or allegedly complicit. In this case, Robidoux's own lawyer called BofC a cult. Is that a smear? No. Is the media biased? No, it's straight court reporting.

---

Case study 2 (random #21) Concerned Christians:

________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT: ONLY THIS INDEX ENTRY APPEARS AT List of groups referred to as cults:

*Concerned Christians (BBC) (NY Times)

________________________________________________________________

"U.S. Alerts Israel on Cult; Plan for Suicide Is Feared" - 1998-10-24, New York Times: "Israel has been alerted that a Colorado doomsday cult that may be planning mass suicide could be on its way here, the United States Embassy said today. Several dozen members of the cult, Concerned Christians, sold their belongings and left their homes before Oct. 10, the day their leader predicted that Denver would be destroyed by an earthquake marking the start of the apocalypse. The leader, Monte Kim Miller, has said he will die in Jerusalem in December 1999 and reappear three days later." .... "This guy's influence is perhaps even greater than we'd thought, said Officer Roggeman, who monitors cult activity. I have gotten calls from Houston, New Mexico, all over, from people who knew their friends or family were in the group but never knew how dangerous it was or that this was going on." "Cult members deported from Israel" - 1999-01-09, BBC News: "[Israeli] Police said the Concerned Christians were suspected of planning unspecified "extreme acts of violence" in an attempt to hasten the second coming of Jesus, which they believe will take place at the end of the millennium." .... "They did not deny the fact that they are waiting here in Israel to wait for the return of Jesus, but they say they will not be involved in any illegal activity," said lawyer Eran Avital."

Case analysis: The Denver police called Concerned Christians a cult, after the leader said he was going to die in Jerusalem at the Millennium and reappear three days later. Then he departed with a group of members looking a lot like the 1997 Heaven's Gate suicide cult. Is that a smear? No, the leader said irrational things about impending death that others apparently believed and acted on. Was the Denver police estimate of disappeared members too high? Apparently, but not beyond reason. Did the Israeli police go too far in suspecting CC of planning violence? It's difficult to tell, but then Israel is a guerilla war zone. Is the media biased? Not in any obvious way. NYT reported what high and low officials said about the disappeared people. BBC reported official sources and contacted the group's lawyer for a statement. The stories are straight police, government, and lawyer reporting.

---

These two cases are just a pilot rather than a scientific sample. Still, the pilot sample shows no significant hits for either smear or media bias. They look typical to me. If other editors think they aren't representative, pick your own samples.

So, the final question to ask is, are you unintentionally smearing LOGRTAC? Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that info of the sort you have provided above has a lot more encyclopedic relevance. This is what could be included in List of cult controversies; each of the controversies could have a section to itself, or an article to itself that is linked to from the list, much as we do with political scandals, journalism scandals etc. Jayen466 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I ment when I said it is not very useful is that it really is a collection of indiscriminate information; the standard of having two sources refer too a group as a cult can be so inclusive that truly bizzare entries can appear. If I were to do a reaserch project on cults and needed some examples I doubt communism would be a good example and in the case of Jeffrey Lundgren, how can a single person be a cult? — Icewedge (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I favor deletion "Jeffrey Lundgren" is shorthand for the small schism of Community of Christ created by Lundgren. The group has no article of its own because it amounted to 12 people and I'm not even sure it had a name. Still the group believed in Lundgren as a final prophet and killed for him. It is referred to as the "Lundgren cult" by several people. I can alter the name of that entry without creating an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with above. Either that or start a new article with the title List of articles that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and put this one first. Really, this is sheer, condensed POV and can't be made to look otherwise. The standards for inclusion (high degree of tension etc) are vague and unworkable. It celebrates immaturity and intolerance, and is an invitation to vigilantism. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton (15:28): "The standards for inclusion (high degree of tension etc)..."

Strawman fallacy – no one said those were the standards for inclusion.

Please read the above two case studies of LOGRTAC-indexed news stories, and explain how the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, The New York Times, and BBC News are "condensed POV", "immature", "intolerant", "an invitation to vigilantism" and "an embarrassment to Wikipedia". Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on religiously oriented groups whose activities have been found to be illegal is none of these things. For Wikipedia to apply guilt by association to a bunch of other people who have broken no laws is all of them.

I understood one of the standards for applying the word cult to a group was "a high degree of tension with the surrounding society." If this is not correct, what are the standards being applied? Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is (1) one academic reference using the word cult for the group or (2) two references in a media source using the word cult for the group. Jayen466 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Rumiton(13:05): "what are the standards being applied?"

A particular scientific definition of a cult and the LOGRTAC standards for list inclusion are different things.

It's not just an issue of tension, rather it's combinations of tension and tradition which form Church-sect typology.

The Stark and Bainbridge, 1985, definition of "cult" is a group with beliefs nontraditional to the surrounding culture and in high tension with that culture.

By contrast, a North American "sect" is a group in high tension with surrounding culture, but with beliefs traditional to that culture (e.g., rural "Bible thumpers" who demonstrate against a nearby city as "Sodom and Gomorrah"). (See Sect.)

To avoid further misunderstandings, here are the actual LOGRTAC inclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria for List of groups referred to as cultscurrently installed (2008-06-22)

1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,

(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,

(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,

(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult" in North American English;

(D) using any non-excluded definition.

2. Organizations, and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups.

3. Listable groups must be referenced within the last 50 years.

4. Excluded from listing are cultural or personality cults (artistic, celebrity or political fan-cults), or groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups). If a reference claims that a group's other cult activities are more significant than its fan-cult, it becomes listable.

5. In list items where the reference keywords are different from "cult" only, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references.

In addition to the above criteria, the article stopped working after a functional year when the the 1920+ criterion was hijacked, which reads as follows:

1920+ inclusion criterion for List of groups referred to as cultsinstalled from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007

Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices."

Since 1920+ is hijackable as a criterion, it needs to be moved into the title by renaming as follows:

RenameList of groups referred to as cultstoList of groups referred to as cults and founded 1920 onward(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC20")

To relieve the pressure to list other kinds of cults in LOGRTAC, which caused this AfD – two more new articles are needed:

Create the following articles:List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")List of groups referred to as cults following popular culture(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTACFC")

Milo 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an AfD, or a discussion on how to perpetuate a dispute that has its basis on arbitrary criteria in contravention with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've posted these theories previously, I've worked through your arbitrary criteria claims to their core consequences for all Wikipedia lists.

The WP:NPOV claim is based on a trivial demand-for-perfection fallacy. NPOV can never be perfect, so the fallacy is unsatisfiability. The proper response is to dismiss the fallacious claim, and make small NPOV improvements as opportunity arises. That's been done at LOGRTAC, most recently with cult-denial-links that were in process when this AfD began.

You have a theory which is not based on a plain-text reading of WP:NOR, and implementing it would require a rewriting of WP:NOR to be understandable to most editors.

But suppose that happened, what would be the result? The short answer is copyright violation, since not even public domain lists would be allowed.

(Take that, pesky criteria-less government cult lists!)

Wikipedia editors are currently required to inventively create header criteria for lists, then populate them with entries found in reliable sources. You claim that arbitrary or invented criteria are original research violations of WP:NOR, rather than required source-based research as presently understood.

Invented/arbitrary criteria as original research is your blue-sky personal interpretation of WP:NOR, stretched beyond the breaking point of reason.

Rightly understood, your claim would restrict all Wikipedia lists to conditions so stringent that most old lists would be deleted, and relatively few original new lists could be created, if any. All Wikipedia lists would have to publish inclusion criteria (specifications) copied from lists existing elsewhere. Since very few or no lists publish formal inclusion criteria, I think you would then claim that Wikipedia is too WP:NOR-helpless to have any lists.

Suppose though, that others began to publish formal criteria. Oops, they're copyrighted criteria. Wikipedia is still too helpless to have any lists.

Suppose the criteria were reworded to avoid copyright, but used synonyms to produced substantially the same list output such as existing Top-10 this or that. Oops, top-10 lists are copyrighted, and substantial similarity is copyvio. Did I mention that Wikipedia is too helpless to have any lists?

By reductio ad absurdum ,your theory requires Wikipedia to either supposedly violate WP:NOR (most/all public domain lists), violate copyright of any criteria'd lists, or, have few or no lists.

No lists is a WP:SNOWBALL. It's a done deal – there will be lists at Wikipedia.

If there will be lists, then copyvio consequences are avoidable by following the originality requirement of copyright law: Wikipedia must inventively create header criteria for lists

Do you still think inventively created list criteria violate WP:NOR? Copyright law trumps WP:NOR, and WP:SNOWBALL ('there will be lists') trumps what you think. Milo 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction between "cult" and "sect" in North American English is a bit of a joke. It may be how Stark and Bainbridge differentiate the terms (if all of that distinction is indeed citable to them), but it is simply not reflective of real-life media behaviour in the U.S., described for example by the scholarly statistical analysis of media reports quoted at length here. As the quoted paper points out, in the U.S. media, the terms cult and sect have often been used interchangeably and applied in an arbitrary fashion to one and the same group. The only effect I can see of using this artificial cult/sect distinction, which is demonstrably not reflective of actual media reporting, would be that groups "with beliefs traditional to U.S. culture" would be kept out of the List of cults, even if they have been subject to widely reported criticism. Is this, then, the intent, or is there another, better reason for wanting to apply this criterion that has escaped me? Jayen466 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's time to admit that we'll never make a good job of this article. The subject is too vaguely defined and the information value is negligible. Moreover I suspect that it attracts people to edit Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (particularly, to campaign against their favorite hate object). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - no deletion reason given in nomination; DRV discussion should not have been inserted here as DRV and AfD serve two different purposes. I would have no objection to starting a new AfD from scratch if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline justification posited for deletion in the nomination. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

• Comment I would kindly ask user Milo, to try and be a bit more succinct, and to appreciate that there is no need to respond to each comment for delete with 3,000 bytes of text. I would also ask editors that may be confused about the OR violation claims made by me and others, to read Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, which states that (my highlight)In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources . In this case, the criteria and definition is obviously disputed, and it is not based in any reliable source, rather, it is the invention of some editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 23 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.

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 delete all. This seems to fall under the category of walled garden. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lethy[edit]

Lethy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, Google knows nothing about the claimed chart successes. Has already been speedily deleted and recreated twice.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

For Those Who Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One (Lethy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moderate (Lethy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Kind One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd Do It Again For You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Closer (Lethy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Category:Lethy songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Catherine Davys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional article. Who's ever heard of Lethy, apart from her Mum and Dad? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very very suspiciously appears as an elaborate hoax. The content does not add up against searches in Google; e.g., "I'd Do It Again For You" moby, which is said to be a remix by Moby yields no results. I can do other examples, but it's pointless—I pretty much need some kind of proof to say it is not a hoax. +mt 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How many times do we have to vote to delete an article? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. Artene50 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lethy and Catherine Davys (bupkiss on G or GNews). If these go as non-existent than the songs and the album need deleting as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 18 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.

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England vs The Big Three at rugby union[edit]

England vs The Big Three at rugby union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Firstly, this article duplicates existing content at England vs Australia at rugby union, England vs New Zealand at rugby union, and England vs South Africa at rugby union, all of which should be adequately accessible from articles on the English rugby team.

Secondly, the concept of "The Big Three" is somewhat POV and not in wide use. Northern hemisphere journalists seem to use it as a space saver, but I've never heard it used in new Zealand. I found at least one rugby reference where the phrase meant something else. I see little benefit or logic behind separating these three countries from all England's opponents.

Note: This article was previously proposed for deletion and contested without reason after 6 days. dramatic (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above reasoning. I agree that the title "The big three" is pretty POV, and I too have never heard it in NZ (where the term "Big three Southern Hemisphere teams" might be used, but only the most parochial fans are unlikely to regard them as inherently superior to either England or France. The term "Tri-Nations sides" is more likely). England's appearance in three RWC finals (only equalled by Australia, sigh) is further indication that naming a "big three" faces various problems. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Regardless of whether big three is POV (usually the term is Big Five meaning England, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand), the info in this article is redundant, and is adequately covered in other articles. - Shudde ^talk 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per the above reasons Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplication, and the name is not only POV but time sensitive. What do we do if the so-called "big three" are different in two years time? Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any useful material to the head-to-head of other pages. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, duplication, and as an Australian rugby fan I too have never heard the term "big three" used in the way it's being used here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 19 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.

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 snowball delete.. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jigga Juice[edit]

Jigga Juice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song by non-notable artists Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is why I think that A7 should extend to songs so that we don't end up with orphaned non-notable song pages like this. Anyone care to speedy it per WP:IAR? I see no reason to drag this out for the full week. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The song is a confirmed single User:SPBLU

• So what? The artists don't have a page, and aren't very likely to (I see no reliable sources for them). Come back when it charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The artists are of dubious notability, never mind one of (their only?) recordings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - song fails WP:MUSIC, as it has neither been covered externally or been in any national music chart. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No radio adds date, non-notable artists. Recommend speedy close. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Existence does not equal notability. Recreation if it becomes notable and meets said criteria is perfectly reasonable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nom that this could be a speedy --T-rex 15:53, 18 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.

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 Redirect to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board. Whether or not to merge the content there or possibly, at a later date merge/redirect to a new article at Education in Pictou County, Nova Scotia is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Pictou Middle School[edit]

East Pictou Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school. My attempt at redirecting it to the school board was reverted, and attempts at communication and suggestions for sources were rebuffed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask for the user's definition of "suggestions for sources", as all I've gotten from them is AfD outsomes and Wikipedia policies. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, not only have I linked Cavenba to the WP:RS page on their Talk page, but I've tagged the article for lack of sourcing, which also links to discussions about sourcing. Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the part of WP:OUTCOMES where it explicitly says that it can't be simply ignored just because it's a list of precedents rather than a binding policy. You need to provide a reason why this particular case should be viewed as an exception to it. And the reason there's an onus on you to find some sources is that you're the one who reverted the redirect. You don't own the article, true, but if you want to make an assertion that the school is sufficiently notable to have its own separate article, then you have to back that statement up with evidence. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, where it can be discussed in context and expanded until there is sufficient independent, reliable sourced content to justify a break-out article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I attempted to do from the beginning. And then my followup, I thought was friendly and constructive, but my communication with Cavenba has deteriorated to the point where I have been forced to ask him/her to stop posting on my Talk page unless they have something constructive to say. Corvus cornix_talk 23:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that. Perhaps, a Request for Comment for broader input could have been tried. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, no assertion of notability and no verifiable third party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as usual. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a non-notable middle school. -Djsasso (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect perhaps we should create an Education in Pictou County, Nova Scotia article where more details about Pictou County's education can be discussed, instead of the broad, non-descriptive CCRSB article, which contains almost 90 schools in central Nova Scotia. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, if there is enough sourced content, that would be a good article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or at least, Pictou County, Nova Scotia#Education. Corvus cornix_talk 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board as usual. If Education in Pictou County, Nova Scotia is created first then merge there. TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. GreenJoe 02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board is probably the most sensible thing to do. JBsupreme (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board unless and until proper sources proving genuine independent notability can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 20 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.

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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lichtblau[edit]

Daniel Lichtblau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are some sources here, but the individual still looks pretty minor and the only RS here is IMDB. According to the lead, his main claim to fame is working on The Simpsons, but according to his IMDB page he was only an assistant to one of the producers on the movie, which is nothing major. Fails WP:BIO easily and looks like a vanity page. It's also worth noting that the user that created this page has vandalized several other pages with what look like false stories about this individual. [8] [9] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, production assistants fail notability standards. And IMDB is not a reliable source, since it's editable by anybody. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was especially skeptical of the claim that he narrowly missed out on the role of Lone Starr in Spaceballs, which came out when he was 5 years old, given that the role actually went to the then-33-year-old Bill Pullman. (By the way, IMDb is edited by its paid staff; user submissions of data are reviewed by the staff before going live. It's not 100% accurate but it should not be considered an unreliable source either.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone find a criterion on which this article can be speedily deleted? I noticed that one of the claimed sources, a Wall Street Journal article, did not even mention the subject, and removed it from the article. Furthermore, the claim that he helped Paul Reubens develop the "Tequilla Dance" appears to be a reference to the movie Pee-wee's Big Adventure, which came out when the subject was 4 years old. I don't think this article has any credibility in terms of accuracy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real assertion of notability in accordance with policies and guidelines seems to have been made. Seriously lacking in verfiability through reliable 3rd party sourcing (though I did note that it isn't just an IMDB reference anymore). Unless we have something from IMDB about their quality assurance processes somewhere that I'm unaware of I'm not willing to take it as a sole source (but, I'm sure that discussion has been had elsewhere). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability. Although he is in lists of credits, I cannot find any substantial coverage. I removed one of the references as it was unlikely to be about the same person. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:24, 18 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.

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 per the snowball clause (non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks Christian High School[edit]

Oaks Christian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AfD following declined speedy. I declined a speedy on this article. Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. --Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Favor. Speedy request ought to be approved. The small private school is of no special importance deserving an article, the article has no references, and it is total spam--just an advertisement for the school. Evolve17 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll agree that the article is a bit self-servicing (it used to be worse!), but it also provides several claims of notability, such as its football team being ranked 6th nationally by USA Today or the attendance of school sporting events by celebrities such as Will Smith or Wayne Gretzky due to their children attending the school. If we go by this proposed guideline, that should be sufficient to claim notability and therefore keep the article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The USA Today ranking is good enough to indicate notability. Problems with the article can be solved through normal editing. If necessary, we can just reduce it to a stub and start over from there. Zagalejo^^^ 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a high school, it isn't going anywhere and there appears to be enough from which to build an article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, no question at all that high schools cannot ever be spee3died for lack of notability --its part of the speedy policy, as such a deletion is always contentious. Second, when the articles are brought here, we normally keep all high school articles,because they almost always turn out to be notable in the end,and its simpler not to have to waste time discussing this. I doubt any AfD on grounds of notability has succeeded in about the last 6 or 8 months at least.
• Keep there are lots of WP Projects (usually state-by-state) that support creating high school pages, although they are usually just stubs. But a stub is a valid article... this one can be further improved, but should be kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some references now in the article. Could use some continued improvement & sourcing, but notable like nearly all High Schools.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOME although as mentionned above some improvements is needed to some areas of the article. --JForget 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have no problem keeping the article, but I object to the use of WP:OUTCOMES as the basis for a decision. Articles should be kept on their own notability, not because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wish more people would read it. People say "It's not true that all High Schools are notable." But when was the last one that didn't end up as a keep because it turned out that sources could be found. IMHO no (real) high school article should end up at AFD, it should be tagged as needing improvement/references.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind people reading it, just people citing it as if it were a guideline. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - high schools of that size are notable, even without nationally known football teams --T-rex 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - specific claims of notability backed up by reliable sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 18 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.

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 Speedily deleted. This article was stubbed to a single sentence by its initial author, from a 9K page. I take that as almost a page blanking; and the sentence left fails WP:CSD A1 - not enough context to figure what it was about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic campaign[edit]

Strategic campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay (see WP:OR) created by author (see WP:COI) to promote his book with website linked in article (see WP:SPAM). Declined speedy as spam (!!!). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related article: William Rogers, Persuasion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close Article is only a few hours old. An afd is innapropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD. I fail to see how to other article is remotely linked to the main afd. Consider removing it to a seperate afd. The term itself is notable and often used [10][11][12][13][14][15] --neon white talk 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at all nothing unusual or inappropriate about nominating an article for AfD after a declined speedy (usually quite soon after an article is created). The use of the term "strategic campaign" as a phrase does not imply that this article is not OR and COI (and quite likely cut and pasted from the author's book). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The original author has reduced the original article down to one sentence, but it appears that it was a summary of his book, Persuasion: Messages, Receivers, and Contexts. Luckily, the world will little note nor long remember whether efforts to persuade us to keep this article failed. Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm rather surprised to find this article still here given its present condition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Delicious Carbuncle and Malleus Fatuarum. With the author reducing the article to what it is now, and if he doesn't want to do anything else to it, there's no reason to keep it. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article as it stands meets speedy criteria for lack of context anyway. Related article is PROD'd at the moment but, if it came up here would be a delete as well.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:04, 18 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.

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, there is a weak consensus for keeping this article but with a definite need for cleanup. There is some support for merging but certainly no consensus for it here. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Portable homebrew[edit]

PlayStation Portable homebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is mostly just an changelog of different versions of PSP homebrew, and thus, in the format given, not encyclopedic. _→AzaToth 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Some of it may be merged, but the whole changelog for a product doesn't need to be here. Nakon 21:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. A paragraph or mention on the original PlayStation Portable page is sufficient _→Nehle^talk҉ 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the pervasive nature of hacking/homebrew on the PSP (and the allegations that it's affected business in such a negative way that, despite outselling the Wii in Japan, developers are loathe to support it because of piracy concerns), I think a detailed article covering the phenomenon is warranted. It's obviously had an extreme effect on the device and how it's used. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep notable enough, but needs condensing to a much smaller size. I tried to keep a handle on it for a while, but it spiralled out of control. It might be beyond saving at this point, don't think I'd argue too much against deleting it, but it'd still be worth keeping if it was cut down. Thanks! Fin©™ 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per Falcon9x5/Fin. It's in desperate need of cleanup. I don't really see articles on other platforms' homebrew, but I still feel it's somewhat notable. Perhaps a small section in the PSP article may be sufficient. Λύκος 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Admittedly I don't understand everything the article is trying to say but, it has been tagged for improvement for a long time and has multiple issues which may make cleanup an insurmountable task. Perhaps a condensed, factual, referenced section could be included at the PlayStation Portable article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Page is a small train wreck, which I assume prompted the AfD. It really just needs boatloads of pruning work. 83.203.175.207 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it's notable enough. It just needs cleaning up. Toxicroak (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: In a rush and don't have time to do a quick search, but I have a pretty good feeling that this topic has enough information in reliable sources to support it as notable. It's written in a really poor, unencyclopedic way. But there's merit in keeping this and cleaning it up, if it is notable. This article verges on violating WP:NOTDIR and WP:VGSCOPE guideline #8. That's a concern. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Similar articles, such as iPodLinux, which employs parallel concepts with the PSP homebrew, is certainly acceptable for notability; the same should apply to this. However, extensive cleanup is needed. MuZemike (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Potentially shorten and maaaaybe merge, but avast, there be sources, arr. --Hawkian (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it obviously needs to be cleaned up a bunch (and if any of these hacked firmwares are notable enough to warrant their own articles, changelog type material can be moved there instead). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is very informative, and is a good collection of information. In addition, it is cited. 69.40.205.30 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 25 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.

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 redirect. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Edwards[edit]

Ryan Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage in multiple secondary or third party reliable sources. Google search shows several ghits, but not all with the same name are musician. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (there isn't anything to merge) to The Lines, the band this person plays in. He isn't notable outside the band, and a redirect would aid navigation and discourage the article being re-created. Bláthnaid 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Lines per both the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:13, 18 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.

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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Schelling[edit]

Carter Schelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable person. Founder of a non-notable org that doesn't have a page. No reliable sources. An IP tried to list this page but didn't do it right. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Normally I support keeping articles that can be improved. This appears to be a promotional article, which Wikipedia is not--and promotional articles normally do more harm than good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically Spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:16, 18 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.

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 Delete. Consensus seems to be that the club is not notable. In establishing consensus, I weighed heavily the Keep opinions of Govvy and ChristheDude. However, the former is undermined by the fact that the player he cites clearly does not meet the specified criteria. ChristheDude's argument is probably "Weak" because it doesn't really amount to multiple, non-trivial references per WP:N. Another article like the Four Four Two one would certainly be good grounds for an argument for reinstatement. Dweller (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Ensign F.C.[edit]

White Ensign F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The club fails to meet generally recognised criteria of having played at Step 6 or above, and has never played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. I don't believe the fact that they were once mentioned in Four Four Two makes them notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding the FA Cup, this team is a registered non-league level team, there for they qualify for the FA Vase non-league rounds. So your AfD statement sounds incorrect. That goes the same for all Essex Olympian Football League register teams. Govvy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the club's record - they have never competed in the FA Vase or FA Cup. Being a registered club is irrelevant - they have to apply to play in the cup, and they either haven't, or have but weren't accepted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe their ground has no lights therefore they aren't actually eligible to compete in the FA Cup or Vase..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep based on news coverage and a full-length article (not merely a mention) in Four Four Two (I have the issue in question at home) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote to keep the article based on the facts of additional citation in the article which supports the clubs existence with records of fixtures and results. Even if notability is small and the second fact is that they are a registered club with the FA. The club details are provided on the FA site which presents a club of non-league nature. To quote "Qwghlm" Clubs that a highly notable player (10+ caps for a top-level country, or 100+ appearances for a top-level club) has played for, for a significant period (e.g. one year or more). Well it not quite close enough, but they have help to produce Paul Benson who is known to a fair number of fans of league two. Which is what the BBC article is about. Which again is about the citation for the club and player. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for consistency with other recent AfDs of a similar nature. Never played at a notable enough level to establish notability, and appear to have nothing special about them to gain such notability for reasons other than their standard of football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)
• Keep - the fact that they are the 'unpromotables' due to their stadium issue, which is mentioned in the FourFourTwo article is quite significant itself. 116.197.246.203 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, that isn't that significant, there are lots of clubs who are not eligible to be promoted due to the state of their grounds..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are certain inconsistencies. For example there is the claim that they are 'unpromotable' from Division One but the Essex Olympian Football League article shows them in the Premier Division. I also don't accept that having fielded a notable player makes them notable. Notability is not inherited; if it were we would have to keep all manner of school teams since most players will start with a school team or a youth club. I see no particular reason to depart from the accepted standards of notability for football clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, they were in Division One of the EOL when that was the name for the top division (they had divisions 1/2/3), and the only reason they are now in the Premier Division is that the league changed names (now having (Premier/1/2). - fchd (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete noting that the previously prodded team articles from this league have been deleted. Bettia (talk) 11:24, 24 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.

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 Deleted as nom points out. I have tagged Clean sadness as a broken redirect, so it should be speedied as well. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean sadness[edit]

Clean sadness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. I get a lot of google hits, so need feedback. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted by Sandahl. As the nominator, I'll let someone else decide close this or restore the page and await further review. An article by this name was deleted before as the result of another AFD but this one was created with a lowercase S and totally unaware of any previous discussions, moved by me. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:33, 17 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.

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. Soxred 93 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons DVDs[edit]

The Simpsons DVDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable DVD releases from a single television series. Yes, The Simpsons is a huge show, however, its DVD releases do not need such an excessive list, which violates not a catalog and not a directory. This level of detail is appropriate for a sales listing of the DVD, not Wikipedia. The pertinent information, such as release dates and regions, are already fully (and better) covered in List of The Simpsons episodes and the individual Simpsons season pages, as noted in the Television MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments-I see where you are getting this from, but this does not violate WP:DIRECTORY as it is not a sales catalog, a list of non-encyclopedic associated terms, a directory, nor is it a list of loosely associated topics. Like WP:DIRECTORY#1 states, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, this list is associated with the famous entry, The Simpsons.SRX^--LatinoHeat 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also extremely redundant, and giving extremely undue weight to a very common element of a television series. There is nothing striking, notable, or unusual about the Simpsons DVD releases that warrant such excessive and extensive coverage. Its already covered in the individual season episode lists, the main episode, and the main Simpsons article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to correct you on one part. While the DVD boxset information is in the season page, it is only a small portion of the article. The rest of these DVDs are not covered anywhere else on wikipedia, except for in a small summary section in the main The Simpsons article and a couple episode articles mention that that specific episode is in a certain DVD release. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that is really needed. Wikipedia is suppsed to be an overview, and not provide minute detail on a topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true, Weak Delete per nomination and WP:UNDUE.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously notable and easily sourcable. The AfD smells of WP:POINT. Dekkappai (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further: DVD releases are notable information which should be included in articles on a TV show or film. What makes this particular article on DVD-releases exceptional is its size. When any one section of an article becomes too large, it is broken away. This is an article which breaks information away from a very large subject. To delete this article, or any similar article such as Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1, etc. is to declare that DVD releases are not information which should be included in any article. I don't think Wikipedia has yet declared this. Dekkappai (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • *ahem*. The Loney Tunes collection was considered an exception, due to their unusual nature. Deleting this article does not in any way say that DVD information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, its saying don't give it undue weight, don't go into excessive detail about them, just not e it was released in DVD sets where appropriate, and that's that. It is extremely rare that a television series' DVD releases would require its own article to provide an adequate OVERVIEW, versus minute detail. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're saying it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Then do we merge it into the main article? No, because the article is already too large. These DVDs can very easily be sourced, and the article can be expanded to include more information on them very, very easily. Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is already covered in the main article. It is also already covered in every last episode list. I'm saying this is excessive detail that rather than being shoved off to some other article, it should have been trimmed down and kept under control. This sort of detail would be like listing the page counts, number of images, number of sentences, number of words, etc for a book. Just because the information may exist and can even be sourceable does not mean it should always be included. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Dekkappai. Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: After checking into things I can say there shouldn't be too much more undead weight to be added to this site and based on my analysis of the most recent release dates it doesn't seem to be any further development on Individual DVD releases since it has been over 2 years since an individual DVD release was ever released. While the loss of the DVD Boxset page was surprising to me I consider it an acceptable loss, but for this page because alot of episodes from the individual episodes come from different seasons then I would have to consider this an unacceptable loss because these details have no where else to go on Wikipedia and as long as the the Boxset details are kept trimmed down or removed from this page entirely then it would do good for the page entirely. It is also like saying that every release in a book series, especially with comics is fully unacceptable to Wikipedia which is a crude way to stir up a hornet's nest in my opinion. Besides at least it is not at or greater than 32KB. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing here that can't be included in the episode or season lists. No need to repeat it here --T-rex 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as easily verifiable inoformation concerning a remarkably notable television series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep:--SkyWalker (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? A reason or reasons must be given to show this article meets appropriate Wikipedia guidelines and policies for existance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: For any other DVD releases AfD, I would say "delete", but this article contains information on releases not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia. Give it some time and Scorpion and WP:SIMPSONS will probably make it a featured list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:20, 22 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.

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 Move to an article about the event and not the person. Will move the article to Murder of João Hélio Fernandes Vieites for now until/unless a different title is decided upon. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

João Hélio Fernandes Vieites[edit]

João Hélio Fernandes Vieites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As I understand it, it is customary not to include biographical articles for people who may be notable for being involved in a single event. In this case, the only claim to notability the subject has is the event of his death. The article itself cannot hope to be more than an article describing the events surrounding his death, as there is no biographical information worthy of inclusion. Calgary (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete/Re-direct-per WP:BIO1E, it should be deleted, however, if this event caused such an arising, it should be redirected somewhere else, per WP:BIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 20:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to an article on the event (if the event itself meets notability criteria). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewriting this as an article about the event (seems there isn't currently one) would probably be the best course of action. giggy _(:O) 10:11, 25 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.

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. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesoniella[edit]

Jamesoniella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A genus that only has one species doesn't seem to need an article. Unless there are more species, it should either redirect to Jamesoniella undulifolia or be deleted. SeizureDog (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect seems far more constructive than deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Mangostar. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article itself indicates there could be more species, which is confirmed by a google search. Mangostar (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be a number of species in this genus, even though the current article mentions only one. Deor (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, genera are notable enough. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 17 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.

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 Speedily deleted, lack of context, nonsense. Take your pick. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond (rapper)[edit]

Diamond (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC: Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:N, non notable rapper does not warrant an article.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SRX. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, I call nonsense. Maybe it's because I don't know what the first sentence in the article even says, I don't know, but all it gives is some history of albums and says something about somebody asking some question. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:56, 18 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.

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. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moosepath League[edit]

The Moosepath League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – to author’s page. (I’ll start a stub in the next day or two). There certainly is a enough information out there, as shown here [16] for an article. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this should be retained for the following reason . . .

It seems reasonable to add the Moosepath League series. I was surprised to find there was no existing entry. It is a popular book series published internationally by major publishers and a wiki entry should attract additional information from informed sources to build into a useful resource. The first book in the series was picked as a NY Times notable book of 1998[17]. The series has a large following of fans and is an interesting series artistically since the characters parallel the Pickwick Papers of Charles Dickens. To exclude it based on the fact that you can google some information already implies that the wiki entries on series of books by most authors should be deleted from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainPea (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets criteria 1 WP:BK per NY Times review.--Finalnight (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge notable book. NYT notable is sufficient.Yobmod (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NYT editor's choice PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 26 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.

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 delete without prejudice to recreation. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pim Balkestein[edit]

Pim Balkestein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league. Was already prodded, but removed by article's creator with the rationale "Deletion objected because personality will have played in professional league within 60 days, so would just have to be re-added", which of course is a complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. Saying "he'll play within 60 days" is Crystal ballery, should the player play for a fully-pro team against another, article should be recreated. --Jimbo^[online] 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 02:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Then recreate if and when notable. This is not the first case like this and won't be the last. May qualify as WP:SNOWBALL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - he has made 1 appearance in the KNVB Cup this season. ugen64 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears he played for Jong Heerenveen (the reserve team) when they defeated ADO Den Haag (an Eerste Divisie side) 3-1 in the KNVB Cup, from here (it's not a reliable source but I did some searching on the KNVB official website and couldn't find match reports). So I'm not sure what you do when a non-fully-professional-league side defeats a fully-professional-league in a cup tournament.... ugen64 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • more reliable source ugen64 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability a match with only one professional team still fails notability. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main question is: Do Jong Heerenveen play in a fully professional league? Certainly in the case of British football, we do not regard the academy or reserve leagues as fully professional. However, do we transfer this to Holland, where reserve/youth teams play in the national cup? пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say yes. For all I can see, Jong Heerenveen player are as notable as any other amateur side. The fact they accidentally played against a professional team in the Netherlands Cup does not award the team fully professional status. --Angelo (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but I do wonder - Jong Heerenveen side actually progressed further than their parent club (Heerenveen were knocked out in the same round that Jong Heerenveen beat ADO Den Haag). In this case I guess that's not too relevant, since the reserves got defeated in the next round, but what about years in which the reserve team actually won the cup final? It has happened once or twice (the most notable recent case is when Hertha BSC's reserves reached the DFB Pokal final in 1993) - what happens then? One odd case happened in 1987-88, when the Ajax first team got knocked out in the 2nd round, but their reserves progressed to the quarterfinals (beating 3 top flight teams in the process) - so the coach decided to play his first-team squad for the reserve team during the cup match (and naturally they lost). ugen64 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per nom - he'll have an article, oooh, round about mid-August. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 19 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.

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 to delete, defaulting to Keep. Disagreement over whether this is notable or not. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sholf[edit]

Sholf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I voted to keep in the last debate. I'm reopening the discussion and changing my vote to delete because the article is not verifiable. It has sourcing problems that can't be solved as I expected. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete – without prejudice. It seems to be gaining notability as a lawn game. However, do not believe it is quite there yet for inclusion here. There really are no significant third party – reliable – verifiable sources available. In fact, I could only find one and that is already referenced in the article. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That there's only one verifiable source is a clue to whether this is actually notable. It survived deletion last time on grounds that it could be improved. It's a combination of "SHuffleboard" and "gOLF" (hence, "sholf") with what looks like a 15 foot long mat that probably retails for $29.95 plus shuffling and handling. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems to have a lot of blog/youtube/etc articles but only one RS. Seems notable and verifiable, but not the best. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Similar scenario to the swingball afd, its growing in notability, but not there yet.--Finalnight (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep But ignore my opinion, for I'm the game's inventor :-). Do what's right, folks. I'll try again in the future if you decide to delete it. Phauber (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is receiving media coverage and has a reliable source. Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Recreate if it survives long enough to be truly notable, and not just a local fill-in for slow news days.Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Slow news days or not, if there are RS and it meets WP:N, it can and should be here. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:NOTE the news broadcast about the game comes from a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That in itself makes it worthy of an article Atlandy (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - just about sufficient media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 26 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.