- 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. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 ( talk) 11:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
CESNUR
- CESNUR ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reliable sources that prove the notability of Cesnur in this article. In the list of sources there are references to the web site of Cesnur, but nowhere is there a description of the organization itself - only on their personal website. So it looks like an advertising of Cesnur - Juliano202 ( talk) 14:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep. The claim of "no reliable sources that prove the notability of Cesnur", and that "there are references to the web site of Cesnur, but nowhere is there a description of the organization itself - only on their personal website" are plainly false. I added this one and this one myself and informed the nominator, and they look like reliable independent sources describing CESNUR to me. If those are not sufficient, a Google books search quickly finds the following (and these are just the first four links, there are plenty more):
- A Google scholar search (link above) shows me "about 1,840 results", and restricting it to English only via the search settings gets me "about 1,090 results". The nominator has clearly made precisely zero effort at WP:BEFORE. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious keep It took all of two seconds to find plenty of independent sources giving this organization significant coverage. The article's references may have been iffy before this AfD, but "iffy" means the nom should double check, not just assume it's not notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Passes the WP:GNG. Doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was carried out. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. JimRenge ( talk) 17:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- The first link is the site of an anti-cult organization. This is a private site of the organization and it can not be a reliable source.
- The site with a link to the university is reliable, but it does not describe CESNUR in any way, it simply indicates that this is a group of scientists.
- In the book Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements is really a little better described organization. But this is a tertiary source.
- Again, I have doubts about whether we can regard these books as independent sources. Juliano202 ( talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The site with a link to the university is reliable, but it does not describe CESNUR in any way, it simply indicates that this is a group of scientists.
- That is completely untrue. From the link:
The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) is an independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements, always protecting religious freedom while acknowledging the criminal nature of certain cult activities. It hosts annual conferences and topical seminars and also sponsors public lectures to promote its methodology. CESNUR's publications include a series of reference guides on new religious movements and the Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy (2001). In addition, it has provided scholarly criticism to the French government's 1996 Parliamentary Report on Cults. Professor Massimo Introvigne's publications collection on minority religions (on loan to CESNUR) includes over 20,000 volumes and manuscripts from almost 200 journals and is open to researchers. CESNUR receives financial support from the Italian government and has satellite offices in the United States and France.
-
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 16:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article says that CESNUR is an organization in Turin. In your quote, it is said that CESNUR is "an independent international network that engages". It does not say that this is an organization. So you need to correct the article. - Juliano202 ( talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- So your entire argument is that the sources don't specifically use the word "organization"? Is that really it? An "independent international network" of academics who work together, which has a headquarters, and which organizes annual conferences and publishes reference guides clearly *is* an organization, at least to anyone who understands the English meaning of the word. We do not need sources for the accurate use of common English words. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. There is an entire chapter on CESNUR in what is obviously an academic book: "CESNUR: A Short History”, in EUGENE V. GALLAGHER (a cura di), "Cult Wars" in Historical Perspective: New and Minority Religions, Routledge, New York – London 2016, pp. 23-31. I believe the proposal for deletion comes from somebody not liking the organization, which is of course understandable but says nothing about whether the organization is notable or not. Aidayoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for not signing the comment - I did not learn how to sign it from iPad, Aidayoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC) PS I didn't solve the signing in iPad issues but I performed an "advanced search" on Academia.edu and found 474 articles mentioning CESNUR there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC) This matter is becoming increasingly strange. I have just been sent a post on Facebook from a recently created account where somebody who may well be our Juliano202 boasts that he will destroy CESNUR or something similar and shows that thanks to his efforts the page in English about CESNUR is now proposed for deletion. It seems that Juliano202 has a very primitive idea of how he can use or misuse Wikipedia Aidayoung ( talk)
- @ Aidayoung: Increasingly respected Professor Introvigne, first of all I want to remind you that the Wikipedia rules are the same for everyone. Wikipedia is not interested in private opinions - only facts and sources matter here. Everything you write for now is your personal opinion. Unlike you, the administrator of Boing! said Zebedee made a great work - he saved the article of your organization in Wikipedia. I don't have enough evidences of the connection of your young account in Wikipedia with the administrator Boing! said Zebedee and a whole group of accounts that try to protect the article of your organization. So far, there are not enough facts to talk about corruption and collusion in Wikipedia. I paid attention to your article because it was made very poorly. Moreover the administrator Boing! said Zebedee agreed with my arguments. You can be a professor, but here you are just a user who has to prove the notability of Cesnur. The rules here are the same for everyone. A little later I will watch the materials that were given as arguments by Boing! said Zebedee. - Juliano202 ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is disturbing. It's quite obvious that the article is not going to be deleted (and it's also been quite obvious all along that Juliano202 has some opposition to CESNUR). I think all we need to do for now is let this discussion run its course, and then we can deal with any further disruption that might happen. (I see you do not have email enabled, or I might ask you to send me that Facebook link.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Juliano202 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JimRenge ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow! I am honored that Juliano202 confuses me with Professor Introvigne. He should however have looked at the history of the CESNUR Wikipedia page. I did not create it and only by looking at the history myself I remembered that I did once two very minor edits. The page was created and expanded by users who, unlike Juliano202, have a large record of edits in different fields. I do agree that it is somewhat oldish and could be updated and improved based on the sources quoted in this discussion. I may do it myself in the future Aidayoung —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 ( talk) 11:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
CESNUR
- CESNUR ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reliable sources that prove the notability of Cesnur in this article. In the list of sources there are references to the web site of Cesnur, but nowhere is there a description of the organization itself - only on their personal website. So it looks like an advertising of Cesnur - Juliano202 ( talk) 14:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep. The claim of "no reliable sources that prove the notability of Cesnur", and that "there are references to the web site of Cesnur, but nowhere is there a description of the organization itself - only on their personal website" are plainly false. I added this one and this one myself and informed the nominator, and they look like reliable independent sources describing CESNUR to me. If those are not sufficient, a Google books search quickly finds the following (and these are just the first four links, there are plenty more):
- A Google scholar search (link above) shows me "about 1,840 results", and restricting it to English only via the search settings gets me "about 1,090 results". The nominator has clearly made precisely zero effort at WP:BEFORE. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious keep It took all of two seconds to find plenty of independent sources giving this organization significant coverage. The article's references may have been iffy before this AfD, but "iffy" means the nom should double check, not just assume it's not notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Passes the WP:GNG. Doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was carried out. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. JimRenge ( talk) 17:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- The first link is the site of an anti-cult organization. This is a private site of the organization and it can not be a reliable source.
- The site with a link to the university is reliable, but it does not describe CESNUR in any way, it simply indicates that this is a group of scientists.
- In the book Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements is really a little better described organization. But this is a tertiary source.
- Again, I have doubts about whether we can regard these books as independent sources. Juliano202 ( talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The site with a link to the university is reliable, but it does not describe CESNUR in any way, it simply indicates that this is a group of scientists.
- That is completely untrue. From the link:
The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) is an independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements, always protecting religious freedom while acknowledging the criminal nature of certain cult activities. It hosts annual conferences and topical seminars and also sponsors public lectures to promote its methodology. CESNUR's publications include a series of reference guides on new religious movements and the Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy (2001). In addition, it has provided scholarly criticism to the French government's 1996 Parliamentary Report on Cults. Professor Massimo Introvigne's publications collection on minority religions (on loan to CESNUR) includes over 20,000 volumes and manuscripts from almost 200 journals and is open to researchers. CESNUR receives financial support from the Italian government and has satellite offices in the United States and France.
-
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 16:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article says that CESNUR is an organization in Turin. In your quote, it is said that CESNUR is "an independent international network that engages". It does not say that this is an organization. So you need to correct the article. - Juliano202 ( talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- So your entire argument is that the sources don't specifically use the word "organization"? Is that really it? An "independent international network" of academics who work together, which has a headquarters, and which organizes annual conferences and publishes reference guides clearly *is* an organization, at least to anyone who understands the English meaning of the word. We do not need sources for the accurate use of common English words. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. There is an entire chapter on CESNUR in what is obviously an academic book: "CESNUR: A Short History”, in EUGENE V. GALLAGHER (a cura di), "Cult Wars" in Historical Perspective: New and Minority Religions, Routledge, New York – London 2016, pp. 23-31. I believe the proposal for deletion comes from somebody not liking the organization, which is of course understandable but says nothing about whether the organization is notable or not. Aidayoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for not signing the comment - I did not learn how to sign it from iPad, Aidayoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC) PS I didn't solve the signing in iPad issues but I performed an "advanced search" on Academia.edu and found 474 articles mentioning CESNUR there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC) This matter is becoming increasingly strange. I have just been sent a post on Facebook from a recently created account where somebody who may well be our Juliano202 boasts that he will destroy CESNUR or something similar and shows that thanks to his efforts the page in English about CESNUR is now proposed for deletion. It seems that Juliano202 has a very primitive idea of how he can use or misuse Wikipedia Aidayoung ( talk)
- @ Aidayoung: Increasingly respected Professor Introvigne, first of all I want to remind you that the Wikipedia rules are the same for everyone. Wikipedia is not interested in private opinions - only facts and sources matter here. Everything you write for now is your personal opinion. Unlike you, the administrator of Boing! said Zebedee made a great work - he saved the article of your organization in Wikipedia. I don't have enough evidences of the connection of your young account in Wikipedia with the administrator Boing! said Zebedee and a whole group of accounts that try to protect the article of your organization. So far, there are not enough facts to talk about corruption and collusion in Wikipedia. I paid attention to your article because it was made very poorly. Moreover the administrator Boing! said Zebedee agreed with my arguments. You can be a professor, but here you are just a user who has to prove the notability of Cesnur. The rules here are the same for everyone. A little later I will watch the materials that were given as arguments by Boing! said Zebedee. - Juliano202 ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is disturbing. It's quite obvious that the article is not going to be deleted (and it's also been quite obvious all along that Juliano202 has some opposition to CESNUR). I think all we need to do for now is let this discussion run its course, and then we can deal with any further disruption that might happen. (I see you do not have email enabled, or I might ask you to send me that Facebook link.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Juliano202 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JimRenge ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow! I am honored that Juliano202 confuses me with Professor Introvigne. He should however have looked at the history of the CESNUR Wikipedia page. I did not create it and only by looking at the history myself I remembered that I did once two very minor edits. The page was created and expanded by users who, unlike Juliano202, have a large record of edits in different fields. I do agree that it is somewhat oldish and could be updated and improved based on the sources quoted in this discussion. I may do it myself in the future Aidayoung —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.