Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement

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 delete. Courcelles 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement

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

Essentially a list page pertaining to WP:BLPs, with poor sourcing, cites to primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (Raelism) and no significant content discussion whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think there's a BLP problem of sourcing since all of these are sourceable. There is however a general problem that a) most of these people have not accepted their awards and b) It isn't at all clear that these awards are substantially notable in any way. While the presence of third party sources about the topic suggests that they might be, the mentions are either tabloids (including the National Enquirer) or passing mentions. The vast majority are sourced solely to "Raelian Contact" which is simply not enough for any sort of claim of notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - 34 of the 40 cites are primary to Raelian org. BLP issue is of unrequited association. A living person asks not for the award, did not want the award and did not go and pick it up. The award seems nothing more than self promotion by associating your organization with notable people whether they want it or not, which is ok when it is a mainstream notable award, like the oscars for example but has BLP issues when it is a fringe religion self promotional award that it is fair to say many living people may well not want associating with. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing the BLP issue here. The article is neutral and verifiable. The only BLP issue would be if we led the reader to the mistaken belief that these people had chosen to associate with the Raëlian Movement in some way. That's easily sorted by clear wording. If we were to put the individuals in a category, I'd have a problem. As it stands the article is fair and factual. Is is it notable? That's a good question.--Scott Mac 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty clearly a non-notable award. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any real evidence of notability, only coverage by the, um, whatever it is itself and a little bit of yellow-press style entertainment reporting about specific instances. In addition, I can see the BLP concern. Personally I would be very much concerned for my reputation if I occurred in this list and would not be happy about Wikipedia popularising such an awkward fact that has not been widely reported. I guess the difference between me and others here is that it's not clear to me that the list only includes persons who have accepted this title. Hans Adler 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleteNon notable award that most of the recpiants do not appear not even want.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be little if any substantial coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam cloaked as a list of famous people who mostly don't want to belong to a cult. BLP stalking concerns. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the award is fairly minor. But it has been mentioned in several reliable sources. Far more trivial things, with less media mention, have articles. I'm counting 6 5 (one was a dead link) secondary sources, including the San Francisco Chronicle and Rolling Stone. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree with the other non-voters (since it isn't a vote) that the topic of "cults" is way over-covered on WP. (Especially S....ogy.) - Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and its parent organization have given significant coverage to this topic? Where? When? How much coverage? In what capacity? What were the titles of these sources? -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are given in the footnotes of the article. (I mentioned before that there are over 400 articles on a group about the same size as the Raëlian Movement. Its name starts with "S.") Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which cites, specifically, are you referring to? The vast majority of them in this article are directly affiliated with the organization itself, and are thus not independent of the parent organization. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These don't look like in-depth coverage of the topic of this article to me. I wanted to check, but after trying two that simply don't exist any more I gave up. About that other group: Notability isn't about group size. Hans Adler 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Answering Cirt's question) Rolling Stone, Washington Times, National Enquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, and an Italian publication called Bellaciao which doesn't have an article on English WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions at best. Fails significant coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But still they establish that the award exists and is deemed worthy of at least mention in multiple reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they still fail WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re the "multiple reliable sources" I cannot get to some of the sources, but all evidence suggests that every such reference is somewhere between News of the Weird and fluff column-filler. It's clear that they don't think the award is notable; they think it's trivial. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you want to propose to change WP policy to ban articles on trivial topics. I will support you 100%. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing the concepts of trivial topic and trivial mention. Hans Adler 19:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler - please note that Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) may not have an adequate comprehension of WP:NOTE. Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) once attempted to get a Featured Article deleted from existence on Wikipedia, the article Xenu, see the unanimous consensus from the AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu (second nomination). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. It appears to put things into their proper context. Obviously as a user with a real name account I would not have dared contradict such a user if I had known this background. Hans Adler 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to contradict me all you like. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment MSM coverage All references given are for individual awards. There's no citation for the award as a whole. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (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.