Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations

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 --JForget 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations[edit]

This is a mostly empty list, populated by mostly redlinks. RogueNinja_talk 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:RS/WP:V, and adequately so with (19) sources cited. Consensus guidelines delineated on the talk page. At least 12 of the organizations listed already have some semblance of notability shown, as they have their own articles and are bluelinks, not red. The same can be said for at least six of the individual founders listed next to the organizations. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The list appears to have a clear criteria for inclusion, to be well-sourced and NPOV. Many of the entries do have articles, indicating the general notability of the topic. I don't see a reason to delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list gives Christian countercult movement and Anti-cult movement editors a chance to note their Opposition to cults and new religious movements in a way which both avoids cluttering up the Large Group Awareness Training article while still meeting WP:RS. If the issue is redlines, those should be de-wikified for now and notability of individual organizations addressed at those articles. Rorybowman (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Given the concerns about LGATs, it seems appropriate to keep a list. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More pointless listcruft - if somebody wants to read about one of these groups they would be better off reading the individual article on the group than seeing the group listed on a "list". The above comment "given the concerns about LGATs..." is also a big clue that this list is intended to promote a POV regarding these groups, lump them together, or as a blacklist. Get rid of it. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (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.