Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies


 * 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 no consensus. Buck  ets  ofg 22:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and likely self-serving award by biased POV group. Justanother 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete as it stands Rewrite sourced well, but lack requirements for nomination, plus lack of winners show to me it's not notable up to par yet. Whsitchy 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Add-on comment rephrased (changed) my vote. Whsitchy 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the notable winners show that it is adequately notable itself; the article needs editing because the inidividual bios of the notable people given the awards should not be recapitualated here. DGG 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't say the award is "self-serving", but I would like to see some third-party coverage. The journals mentioned in the article are, of course, published by this organisation. StAnselm 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IDK, I see a certain similarity in the researchers that receive this award and doubt that a researcher that did a study called, oh, IDK, "Positive changes resulting from involvement in NRMs and LGATs" would even smell a nomination. --Justanother 14:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - And to, above, the article also utilizes citations from Case Book of Brief Psychotherapy with College Students, and Recovery from Cults, both of which are secondary sources. Smee 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. If this award was notable it would be reported in secondary sources not related to the subject. To keep, bonafide secondary sources will be needed, not just primary sources. I would suggest that editors wanting to keep, make an effort to find these sources, maybe extending the AfD for a few more days if needed be. If no such sources are forthcoming, redirect and merge to International Cultic Studies Association so that work is not lost. Not all subjects need an article, when material can be incorporated into other existing articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect There is really nothing to this article. It reads in brief, "there is an award, these guys won it, here is proof it exisits."  That's fine, but does not need to be an encyclopdia article.  Move the award to a section of the article on the organization that presents it.  Then make this page a redirect.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: To closing Admin -- My sentiment is still "Keep.", but if the consensus is to merge and redirect, please keep the history so that I can merge the material into the other article. Thank you.  Smee 20:30, 7 June 2007 (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.