Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery from Cults (book)


 * 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, leaning towards keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Recovery from Cults (book)
Recovery from Cults (book) is not a notable book. On 31 Mar 2005, this article had already been nominated for deletion by me but it survived. See Votes for deletion/Recovery from Cults for a record of the discussion. I am re-nominating this article because I would like to do more work on this article only after I am sure that the article survives deletion. Andries 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment another related concern expressed on the talk page of the article is that there may not be enough on-topic reputable sources for a balanced article on the book. Critiques and reviews of the book may not be available. With on-topic sources I mean sources that mention or review the book. Andries 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not make a vote myself. I only want to find out whether this article should exist or deleted before I put a lot of work in improving it. Andries 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the book is an incredible resource for professional and laypeople alike. The fact that it has 22 contributors, some of them pretty notable in their own right, lends credence towards keeping/expanding/cleaning up some more.  Perhaps, in time, some of the other more notable contributors to the book who have written numerous books/publications themselves might also merit having articles at some point.  Yours, Smeelgova 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
 * From a similar comment I made at: Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book), Per Pascal.Tesson and User:Jossi's recommendation, I went ahead and looked at WP:BK. The criteria clearly states that if one of the criteria is met, the book is "generally notable."  One of these criteria is, "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.", which Michael Langone most certainly does.  Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).NOTE:, this is NOT meant for you to go and look at the other AFD and vote there.  Please do NOT do so because of this above comment.  I simply wanted to point out the similarities between the debates and satisfying WP:BK as per the guidelines.  Smeelgova 06:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Please keep Recovery from Cults (book) this article as it is by far the most comprehensive one out there and it has by far more authentic contributors in the academic world than any other to date. Many of the contributors have wikipages here for the value of their own work, yet chose to contribute to this book because as an academic group it is harder to refute than just one academic voice. Please see the areas covered in the book in the infogami site  (site devoted to recovery for post NRM/CULT/SECT experience) http://xbkinfo.infogami.com/Recovery_From_Cults .  Please click on any of the hot links and see how they will connect back to the wikipedia site for the pages of the contributors in the book. If you delete this this article, it would be a terrible loss to those seeking information on the RECOVERY process.  Thank you for your consideration with regards to this matter. PEACE TalkAbout 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the limited description in the article so far, this book seems to represent only one POV in the mind control and post-cult trauma controversies.  Perhaps it would be better to use this book as a reference to those articles to illuminate that POV.  Giving it its own article would result in merely echoing the POV of the authors and essentially acting as a free advertisement for a book which some Wikipedia editors happen to have read and liked.  If no sources can be found which positively or more importantly negatively review the book, then this is an indication that it does not appear to be of any notable scientific, historic, or cultural significance, and that the Wikipedia coverage of it would necessarily be original research. -- Beland 21:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. It can be referred to in the author's article Michael_Langone. Any useful material should be merged there.  ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe book may have notable contributors and may be very useful, but neither of thos make it notable. Please add reviews and newspaper articles to show notability.Edison 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment I will only try to the work after it has survived Afd. Andries 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This Google search tends to indicate some notability in the sense that some cult-victim support organizations seem to use it as a valuable reference    . Of course we can't expect this book to have tremendous sales nor can we ask for frontpage news articles but notability shouldn't be popularity. If it is a respected source in psychiatry then it should be notable. Now that doesn't mean that the concern about the tone of the article is unwarranted. It is, but not to the point of deletion. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per jossi &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, book by non-vanity publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jeff --Gwern (contribs) 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. A majority of google results are simply either references to the book or places that sell the book. I cannot find notable or reliable sources that cite the book. The links provided by Pascal.Tesson are not from notable sources. From what I can tell, the links provided by Pascal.Tesson are cult sites that either solicit or sell the book (with the exception of one site that provided a book review). Someone provide the reliable or reputable sources that cite this book or use it as a reference. I'm surprised no one has done so thus far. SSS108 talk-email 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pascal.Tesson and badlydrawnjeff. JamesMLane t c 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep even though this book presents my church in a bad light. This book is crucially important to the debate over mind control and "cults". It presents a theory of "cult recruitment" which was initially very popular but later was scientifically repudiated, namely, the "mind control" theory. It's hard to understand anti-cult advocacy (such as the anxiety and urgency which led to the Waco raids) without reference to the premise of this book. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment where is the indication that this book was important for the mind control theories? This 1995 book was published after the Waco raid in 1993. Andries 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, not as proof of mind control. That theory has been discredited by scientific bodies. Important for the history of advocacy of the mind control theory. Mangone makes the typical anti-cult arguments, and we need an article on the anti-cult POV about mind control, so readers can understand why they advised parents to seek deprogrammers (e.g., fighting fire with fire?). Keeping the article on the book is by no means an endorsement of the book's premise. --Uncle Ed 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Comment What is the indication or proof that this particular book is important or notable for the advocacy of mind control? If they are looking for a notable example then snapping is already there. Andries 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wanted to point out that Arthur A. Dole's book-review is the only review to which full text is shown. Arthur A. Dole happens to be on the Board Of Directors of the ICSA (formerly known as AFF - American Family Foundation), whose executive director is Michael Langone (the author of this book) . Therefore, the only public book-review was written by a board member belonging to a foundation to which Langone is the executive director. This is indicative of bias. Of course the review is going to be favorable. Since there are no other public book-reviews, this points directly to the non-notability of this book. SSS108 talk-email 23:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think rather it shows that there is a lot of bias in the anti-cult industry. Many groups conspired to refer worried parents to deprogrammers, and it was all justified with mind control theories. The first thing a deprogrammer tells his victim is that the real victimizers were the "cult" and the deprogrammer is going to free his mind from cult mind control. Once they get their victim to blame everything on the cult, they can easily persuade them to leave it (and they collect their $10,000 to $20,000 fee).
 * This book, like dozens of others, supports the mind control premise. It is therefore significant as being part of the controversy over whether (A) that there is such a thing a "mind control" and cults mastered the technique or (B) recruits converted of their own free will. --Uncle Ed 19:25, 27 October 2006 (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.