Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutterers Anonymous

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. Sources have been found, but need to be added to the article.Tyrenius 02:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clutterers Anonymous[edit]

While a Google Scholar search on Clutterers Anonymous does produce four unique search results, I do not believe there is enough information in them to justify notability. Two of them are documents put together by local governments listing the group as a resource for those who have a lot of clutter in their homes. The first journal article only says "The USA has recently spawned an organization called Cultterers Anonymous, which offers a 12-step program as a way of beating the accumulation of possessions." While the second quotes an columnist who uses the term "Cultterers Anonymous" but in such a way that it appears he was not referencing the organization. — Craigtalbert 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Craigtalbert 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless coverage in reliable third-party sources can be established. Significant coverage would be most appreciated. FrozenPurpleCube 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while Google might not have produced much in the way of hits, [Altavista.com websearch produced almost 3000 hits. Now the ones that I looked at were largely CA's sites. But the groups appears to be well established in a multiple number of cities/locations from around the country (San Antonia, Minneapolis, Portland, etc)Balloonman 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nice thing about Google Scholar is that it is intended only to search scholarly literature, therefore most of the results will be reliable sources. So, while a Google search on Cultterers Anonymous returns nearly 10,000 results, a Google Scholar search returns four unique results. Microsoft's answer to Google Scholar, Windows Live Search Academic finds zero results [1]. For organizations, Wikipedia guidelines require that there be reliable sources documenting them. Therefore, regardless of how popular the Clutterers Anonymous might be, the lack of reliable sources documenting it makes it non-notable. — Craigtalbert 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep counts from GS aren't akways reliable, because if someone makes a mere reference to an article, they add an additional hit, but in this case it has done a very nice job of finding sources. Looking at them, they are sufficient to demonstrate notability by themselves. & just need to be added. DGG 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News archive searches are far more appropriate than Google Scholar searches for a topic like this; this group gets 307 GNews Archive hits. [2]. cab 06:13, 18 June 2007 (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.