Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of authors opposing cults


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

List of authors opposing cults

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

As we all know lists are evil, and this one exemplifies why. It has no meaningful content. It is a violation of WP:NOR since no criteria exists governing inclusion to the list. What is the working definition of "cult"? What establishes "opposition"? Why "authors"? If someone known for writing cookbooks says in an interview that they are opposed to Raëlism do they go on the list? This page is a WP:COATRACK for "cult" criticism. PelleSmith (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is full of philosophical and practical flaws. If someone is opposed to the Unification Church but are themselves a Scientologist, do they count? What if they are opposed to Scientology but don't think it's a cult? For practical purposes almost everyone is opposed to cults - they just differ on what they think is a cult. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete meaningless list, not for an encyclopedia. And indeed, why authors?  Fuzbaby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - utterly pointless and subjective. Does this contribute anything to knowledge? -- Kimon talk 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if we have articles about cults, and rules for using the name, we can have a list of authors of anti-cult works. The present list should be supplemented by saying what particular cult or cults was the concern of each author. . If someone in one cult writes against another the note will explain it, as will the article . I do not understand the nomination: it is not the least obvious to most of us that Lists are evil, . The content is meaningful, being a guide to the list of notable writers on a general set of themes. Obviously the meaning is those writers who have written notable books on this particular subject or otherwise concentrated upon it. The natures of the bios of the authors listed make it clear that for most of them saying this is not the least OR., being in most cases supported either by a direct quote or the title of a book of theirs'. DGG (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG lists are evil because they often require editors to become arbiters of categories which are not at all obvious from the outset. They also rarely give us anything of encyclopedic value (that can't be done better with simple categories when appropriate).  This list is not a "List of anti-cult writers" which by what you have written one might confuse it for.  It most probably is not such a list in the first place because of the politics involved with using terms like "anti-cult", despite there acceptance in mainstream scholarship.  If you identify writers with a known social movement then you can actually verify inclusion through reliable sources, but as it is this list begs for subjective value judgments -- again why most lists are evil.  I would also like to add that there are no "rules for using the name" here on the Wiki, if by "name" you mean "cult".PelleSmith (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most lists, btw, are based on purely factual matters, so your generalization doesn't apply. Since we keep almost all lists brought here, it's hard to say that "lists are evil" represents our policy, the items are justified at the article level .  The question is whether this list is too subjective. If the article can source that he is considered an anti-cult writer, that's sufficient.. DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [Remove previous comments] I do believe it is too subjective for reasons already stated. Also I have struck all general comments about lists.PelleSmith (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to Pelle's strikeout by also striking out comments I had made that are now irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This list is clearly a coatrack. Unacceptable. --Junius49 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  —PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly a WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopelessly biased premise and title. Obvious WP:COAT. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:26, 3 July 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.