Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-cult trauma

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. Its now Tuesday and the keep side have not substantiated the claim of sources and the analysis of teh sources suggests they are not sunstantial enough to justify keeping this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-cult trauma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Can't find any source WP:RS describing "post cult trauma" all sources merely relate that trauma is possible phenomenon that can potentially occur when involved with such movements. "Post cult syndrome" seems to have no recognition from any organized body of mental health professionals. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and fails WP:MEDRS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well known term in the anti-cult movement. If you can not find reputable sources then look at the listed references of Jan van der Lans and Margaret SingerAndries (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete may warrant a brief mention in an article on the anti-cult movement, but right now this article seems to violate WP:IINFO and is questionably sourced. eldamorie (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known term in the anti-cult movement. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should be able to show multiple WP:RS that address the topic directly and coherently instead of random hodgepodge of indiscriminate information that is strung together. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no need, because there is nothing wrong with the listed references by Jan van der Lans and Margaret Singer. Andries (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're failing WP:SIGCOV the two source is not enough for [WP:MEDRS]] which is a stricter standard isolated papers by two authors are not enough. Besides Jan van der Lans's paper is published in obscure out of print journal. [[[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] (talk)•(contribs) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess David Bromley has commented on the theory too. The article was never in a medical category, nor is this AFD. Andries (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It purports itself to be medical syndrome. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at the Bromley source doesn't back up anything at all. Just vague mention of trauma and cult that does not address the subject of the article directly which is WP:SYNTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Paul Martin addressed the subject directly. The same quote was also used somewhere else, but I need time to find it. I will look into Bromley who must have written about the subject somewhere, sometime. Andries (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Melton addresses the subject directly enough, I think. Andries (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - none of the sources are reliable, thus there is no proof this term is notable per WP:GNG. I found zero Ghits on Google news, and piles of junk science at Google. The seven articles at Google scholar are very much a mixed bag - a draft of this article, a link to answer.com, and a book on Google books, none of which are reliable sources. I don't see how this even passes WP:FRINGE as a fringe theory or pop psychology. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, aside from the numerous references already in the article, has received significant coverage across multiple secondary sources from different fields. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note I was tempted to close this as delete as all the keep votes are assertions. If the keep side wants to be weighted they need to say exactly what sources they are relying on so that they can be evaluated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give me time until Sunday to check sources. (Some are already listed in the article as reference and I do not understand why you need to check google in such a case.)Andries (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Many uses of the term[1][2] are restricted to the works of Carol Giambalvo or reFOCUS, the anti-cult support group she co-founded. I think this concept would certainly have a place in an article about the group or its beliefs, but we don't have one of those (and I offer no opinion whether it meets reliability standards). Outside of reFOCUS, there are uses of the term in books from 2003[3] and 2010[[4]. I do not think either is sufficiently substantive coverage to assert notability. That's doubly true if the community feels that WP:MEDRS should apply here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (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.