Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre contre les manipulations mentales


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sing! 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Centre contre les manipulations mentales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GROUP. Only possible merge target would be Roger Ikor, but that is already a very weakly notable subject as well. Tgeairn (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: oodles of coverage in WP:RS, passes WP:GNG. . Vrac (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That search is pulling far too many unrelated articles to quantify. Try "Centre contre les manipulations mentales".  Note that the returns are quoting others, and are in many cases multiple news agencies repeating the same quotes or wire-service articles.  These do not meet WP:GROUP, and are specifically excluded in WP:ORGDEPTH. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BEFORE. For sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH criteria, you need look no farther than the article itself: .  As for additional coverage, it's there all you have to do is look for it. Vrac (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for suggesting WP:BEFORE. Having participated in hundreds of XfDs, I have certainly read it.
 * The two sources you provide are not significant coverage of the subject. Said another way, CCMM is not the subject of the coverage in those examples.  CCMM is certainly mentioned, and even figures into the timeline of the LePoint piece, but CCMM is not the subject in these.  WP:ORGDEPTH is (among other things) about having significant coverage of the subject, not passing or incidental coverage. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both sources discuss what the organization does, its history, who runs/ran it, the org.'s influence, etc... this constitutes significant coverage in my opinion. And there's plenty of other stuff out there,, , etc... and the backlash press from sects:  , (I tried to post a link to a sect's anti-CCMM article in this space but I guess wikipedia blocks sect sites), the backlash articles obviously aren't WP:RS but they do speak to CCMM having influence and not being some fly-by-night org, etc... I see no problem with it passing WP:GNG and I'll stop there. Vrac (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There are two main anti-cult organizations in France – CCMM and UNADFI. Both have been nominated (see also Articles for deletion/Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu) but I think both pass GNG rather easily. There is also academic coverage, as in this book. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Oh sorry, the book was already in the article. Anyway, I think that's enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.