Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FECRIS (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FECRIS

FECRIS is not sufficiently notable Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

61 Google News Hits, loads of Google Books hits; why do you say it isn't notable? Abductive (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 38 news hits on my computer, nearly all of which seem to be FECRIS-written press releases (although I can't read the russian ones!). A grand title and what appears to be a high volume of activity by a handful of dedicated people doesn't make this organisation notable. The Google hits are posts and links by similar organizations and/or individuals. I can't find anything that provides third-party verification of any notability. I have not contributed to the article and have no vested interest or prior knowledge of FECRIS. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Among the Google News hits a few of them are for people with the last name Fecris as well. I can't read any of the news articles except the one from Jerusalem Post, "COUNTERING CULTS", and that one requires a subscription. The burden of proof for notability lies with those adding information or wanting to keep an article, you don't have to prove non-notability. The article itself has zero reliable sources and doesn't even attempt to explain why the subject is notable, it essentially says that it exists, is involved with cult activities, and then lists its members. -- Atama ^chat 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 35 sources in books, 22 scholarly sources. Easily satisfies WP:NOTE, subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will improve this article with WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Cleaned up the page, removed all the unsourced info, added some new sources and some material cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, started subsection on History and on Analysis, added an infobox. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's an impressive cleanup, Cirt. The article certainly looks a lot better and the information makes sense. With regard to notability, the number of references in books alone, doesn't mean that the subject is notable. The definition of 'significant coverage' is somewhat subjective. We'd need to look whether the books were widely distributed/sold or just made available in a niche. It's not that hard to get a book published these days, especially if one wants to self-fund it. Similarly, the number of organizations under the "umbrella" of FECRIS is indicative of notability, but doesn't, of itself provide conclusive evidence. We would need to ascertain the notability of the member organizations. Looking into FECRIS a little further over the last few days, it seems to me that it's a rather narrow organization working within a small niche. Nothing I have found changes my delete recommendation. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reasserting your original position as the AfD nominator. Let's see what others think after all the work I have put into this. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have only gone through a few books so far in the recent improvements to the article. I have not even begun to add in material from published scholarly sources, but will do so soon and continue to improve the article's quality further. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hint: When dealing with a French organisation, look for sources in French.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: S Marshall (talk · contribs) makes a very good point about searching for sources in French for a France-based organization. 32 additional book sources in French. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. DGG (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (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.