Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Awareness and Information Centre

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Awareness and Information Centre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NORG. The sources provided fall into three categories:

Self published material of questionable authourship and copyright (the copyright statement literally says "yada yada yada")
Coverage of a single event (DMCA takedown request from Landmark)
Sources that post-date the death of the sole named author of material and yet imply that the organisation was consulted (when in fact the author apparently simply browsed the CAIC website)

None of these meet the requirements to establish Notability. Tgeairn (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zambelo; talk 11:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Nine days ago, you agreed that this org does not look notable. You then said that you found scholarly sources and would add them - but have not. On the other hand, I have been checking sources and cannot find anything that rises to the level of significant coverage in secondary sources, let alone meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Tgeairn (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaving aside the debate over motives above, the currently cited material does not meet WP:GNG in terms of significant coverage (see also WP:CORPDEPTH). Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Bondegezou on all counts. Motivations don't count here, policy-based arguments and evidence do. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since it was established 25 years ago a notable organisation would have a noticeable profile. I can't find any significant coverage beyond a few listings as a useful organisation. Anybody can label other groups as a cult. I would expect something more tangible, some more achievements which others think are significant before it has an entry at Wikipedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Fails to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2014 (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.