Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Mind Abuse


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Council on Mind Abuse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this organization passes the GNG. There are four book sources mentioned, but those give only mentions, of which "There was also a Council on Mind Abuse" (and nothing more) is one of the longest. Almost all sources discuss COMA in direct connection with Haworth (certainly the article from the Toronto Star does), so a merge with that article (it'll be a sentence or two) is valid. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You neglect to mention that these sources are major publications on the topic of NRMs and the anti-cult movement. I found those sources in 5 minutes, and there are doubtlessly more out there, since COMA was an integral part of the movement (as suggested by the mentioned sources) Perhaps you should try looking for sources instead of yet again attempting to remove an article that is clearly notable, but which you seem bent on destroying? I'm sure your co-destroyers will be along soon enough to vote to delete. Zambelo ; talk 22:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Zambelo, I indeed agree completely with nom. Part of a semi-walled garden of non-notable articles. --The Big Bad Co-Destroyer (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NORG. If these are major publications on the NRM/anti-cult movement, 's comments actually make for a rather compelling Delete case as well. No reliable secondary sourcing about the organization - does not meet WP:NORG --Tgeairn (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are aware that the anti-cult movement is made up partially of religious scholars, right? Maybe you don't care, you appear to have a COI in this matter. Zambelo ; talk 09:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I do hope Zambelo is not going to slag me off too. DaveApter (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if you start being disruptive like some others I could mention. Zambelo ; talk 14:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We should have no tolerance for disruptive behavior. Please report such editors immediately at WP:ANI. Alternatively, stop accusing people of being disruptive and stop creating badly sourced articles that cause a huge amount of time and effort to clean up. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it must take a lot of time to vote to delete an article. Just back-breaking labour. Looking for sources and ways to improve an article is easy in comparison! Also: look again, I've only created a few of these articles. Zambelo ; talk 08:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 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) 06:55, 4 October 2014 (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.