- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cult checklist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Simply listing lists does not an encyclopedia article make. Our policies for WP:GNG requires signfiifcant coverage from secondary sources. I found their as been no secondary coverage of "cult checklists" in general. This article as is actually misrepresents several scholars work in the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This really has a drum-beating POV feel to it... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:IINFO list of loosely-related WP:PRIMARY source lists, lacking WP:SECONDARY/third-party interpretation or context. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- It seems like this could, theoretically, be doable. The image makes it seem like a credible article topic - it just needs major clean-up and inline references. I found secondary sources in both the Journal of Law and Religion and Sociological Analysis, but neither of them address the issue in the manner presented by this article as it stands and this article would need a complete rewrite to comply with policy. POV could be scrubbed and inline references added... but even if decision is to keep I'd say this article should be double-checked within the next few months and re-nominated if it hasn't been thoroughly rewritten. eldamorie (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking more closely at the talk page and realizing that this article has been in this state for something close to 7 years, changing to Deleteeldamorie (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this was originally a spin out from the article cult. So may be can it be merged back into cult? Like ResidentAnthropologist, I was unable to find sources that address the subject in general years ago. How does it misrepresent the work of several scholars? Andries (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest that is too detailed, repetitive and/or idiosyncratic for inclusion in that article. What is really needed is a WP:SECONDARY source that synthesises them together into a single consensus checklist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cults and consensus rarely go together and this case is no exception. Andries (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest that is too detailed, repetitive and/or idiosyncratic for inclusion in that article. What is really needed is a WP:SECONDARY source that synthesises them together into a single consensus checklist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of secondary sources. fails WP:GNG. current article is a WP:SYN of primary sources. -Atmoz (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (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.