Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery from Cults (2nd nomination)

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery from Cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Only sources are a review and a passing reference. Lightly cited. Tgeairn (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Michael Langone. Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see a couple references to substantial reviews in the piece as it sits; simple GNG pass here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple reviews are present. Meets WP:NBOOKS.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Carrite and Skr15081997: One of the two reviews is a review by Langone (the compiler / editor of the book in question). The criteria explicitly excludes sources "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". --Tgeairn (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no. The reviewer is Saliba. Langone is listed as the author of the work. It is entirely misleading having his name there, and I will remove it. StAnselm (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! Excellent, thank you for that. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 96 hits from Google Scholar, and multiple reviews from diverse publications (British Medical Journal, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Journal of Psychology & Theology, etc.) StAnselm (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reviews of a book are the usual proof of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nom here has a history of calling anything that disagrees with his POV note notable. [1] [2] [3] and so on. Also, this is the 3rd attept to delete a book with 22 authors, some of whom are notable in their own right. A little silly to keep trying to delete over and over. Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets criteria one and three of WP:NBOOK. Miniapolis 03:34, 8 February 2015 (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.