Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Sectes

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. Mango juice^talk 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Sectes

Non-Notable, book in French language. It does not even have an article in the French Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, let's give this article some time to develop. It's a definitive work on the subject in France, by experts and leaders in their field. Smeelgova 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note:Smeelgova is the creator and primary contributor. Yomangani ^talk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then perhaps Smeelgova will heed the message that the article needs verfiable references and will go get them for us. Can't we assume good faith? That's no reason to negate his or her participation in this discussion.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but it really needs some work. There needs to be some information on how the book has been received by the public, by other experts in the field, other works that have used this book as a reference, etc. OfficeGirl 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the above user is editing Wikipedia since Oct 17, 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

counter-comment indeed but I see no evidence that it is a single purpose account. Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further counter-comment: the "above user" has spent considerable time reading and becoming familiar with Wikipedia before joining and contributing, is a published author and an attorney (and there will be no Wikipedia articles proposed with me as the subject). Being a new member is not criteria for excluding someone's participation or suggesting that the person's votes and comments should be disregarded.

As you may note from the history, the Kabbala article entitled "The Seven Worlds" was proposed for deletion in June, 2006 and it was kept for the very reasons that I have suggested here, though from aught that appears there was no hope at all for the article. I think there's good hope for the Les Sectes article. In years past I have worked on cases with a skilled exit counselor. In my exposure to the field I learned the marks of a reputable resource, and this one looks legit. There's a very good possibility that this book is indeed a leading resource in the field, depending on how it is actually being used.

And aside from the two articles "deprogramming" and "exit counseling" which are duplicative and desperately need to be merged, and the article entitled "cult" which is a cesspool of competing definitions and agendas, there isn't enough cogent information about this rich and active field available on Wikipedia. It's a topic which has affected our society and culture, what with the Jim Jones tragedy, Heaven's Gate, and the controversy that surrounds groups like the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. It's good to have more information like this, and I think the article deserves a chance to be developed. We can always revisit the question of the article again if the requested documentation doesn't turn up soon.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see any reliable sources to prove this is notable. Yomangani ^talk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since the book has not been translated (as far as I know) it's clear that there is little chance of finding reliable sources in English that discuss the notability of the book. In French, however, you do find some [1] [2] [3] among others. It's also worth noting that the author has some notability in France as the guy to interview when you want an anti-sect sound-clip. Because of this, I would tend to believe that the book barely meets the proposed criteria of WP:BK although I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I am however puzzled by the purpose of this article: this book does not have an English translation and is very much about the situation of sects in France so its overall value in the English Wikipedia is pretty low. Furthermore, the translation of chapter titles should be considered as original research. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It has only been created 14 days ago; allow it some time to develop Arnoutf 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Unless valid sources are provided.) Sfacets 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.