Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult and Ritual 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   keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cult and Ritual Abuse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BK - has won no major awards, has not contributed to any motion pictures, arts, political or religious movements, not the subject of any educational courses, nor is the author notable. The book could still be considered to pass criteria 1 (The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.) bar the final point - all reviews are in peer-reviewed journals, none of which are for general audiences - all are scholarly and for specialized interest only. In addition, the page was almost certainly created by a sockpuppet of the community-banned, arbcom sanctioned User:ResearchEditor (an investigation is ongoing). Published initially in 1995 and revised in 2000, the book has since failed to make any impact and the satanic ritual abuse moral panic has subsequently burned out except for a minority of POV-pushing cranks. There is no substantive reason to have an article about this book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable, not even significant or notable as a horrid example of biased literature in the field. Weak and reluctant keep -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has 3 significant reviews in major sources. Peer-reviewed journals are appropriate for a book of this sort, published by a reputable academic publisher--the rule is meant to include minor publications of local or cult importance.  That the topic is less newsworthy now than it used to be is irrelevant to notability. DGG (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per reviews in scholarly sources. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (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.