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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 03:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is not really needed since there is already a category, with subcategories, for new religious movements. The main problem I see with the article is potential problems with WP:BLP. The expression 'new religious movement" is used in various ways by different sources. A lot of times it really means "cult" but other times it just means a recent development in an established religious tradition, like Christian fundamentalism and Online church both of which are included on the list. The specific BLP problem I see is that for most Christians being a member of a "cult" or "new religious movement" (if used in that sense) means that the person is not really a Christian and not going to heaven. I don't think we want to say that about members of, for instance, the Church of God in Christ (also on the list) without much better standards of sourcing. Right now a single source using the words "new religious movement" about a group is enough to put it on the list, or so it seems. BigJim707 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep, arguably split. Please don't try to extend the "cult" debate to a perfectly neutral and value-free term like "new religious movement". --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • also, deep-revert (done). I see the article had been butchered and turned into an alphabetized list. Of course this is pointless, as it is redundant with category listings. List articles only have a point if they are structured, or contain additional information. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article makes more sense with your changes, unfortunately it is also mostly now unsourced and the same information could be given by way of categories. BigJim707 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had a big thing written, but I typed it too slow. First the "there is a category" thing is irrelevant. List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba is a Featured list and it's in the Category:World Heritage Sites in Cuba. Several featured lists are in categories with the same name, categories and lists have different use on some matters. One doesn't negate the other. The BLP issue is more interesting, but BLP refers to articles of living people. Living people might be in new religions, but I don't know. I would say more but I don't want to run into "edit conflict" again.

WP:BLP applies to all articles, not just biographies. So yes members of a church are included. Borock (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if the statement is not expressly about a particular living person, it can't fall under BLP. You're basically pushing for a "transitive property of BLP," such that it would apply if a statement is about a group that living people belong to, even if it doesn't attribute anything specific to or identifies any particular living people. Think of the havoc that would wreak by undercutting normal editing and discussion about any organization that has living members, any corporation that has living shareholders and employees, even countries that have living citizens and government officials. So obviously there have to be strict limits beyond individuals; see WP:BLPGROUP. Also, BLP just requires direct sourcing for negative statements of fact and that they be attributed and/or NPOV in wording, it does not require the avoidance of such statements. Also also, it would really torture BLP out of shape to apply it to faith or doctrine-based assertions such as that someone is "not going to heaven"; many Christians believe that of all non-Christians, for example, such that under your view it then would be a BLP violation to call someone a Jew or a Muslim. Obviously an absurd interpretation. Let's not use BLP as a bludgeon to get our way. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is against WP policy to say someone is a Jew or Muslim, or Christian too, without a good source. I think it is also wrong to say that members of the Church of God in Christ are members of a "new religious movement" (without a good source saying so) even if that is not technically a "BLP violation." BigJim707 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Without a good source" is the key phrase, and as your deletion nom makes clear you aren't claiming that no "good sources" exist that identify any groups as "new religious movements." Which means that the lack of good sources isn't an issue, which leaves you completely without a BLP claim, or indeed any deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a history of very questionable sourcing. Please check out the discussions on its talk page. BigJim707 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially this is more an argument to improve a list than jettison it. Perhaps it should be limited to ones that have been called "new religions" or "new religious movements" in reputable sources and then maybe semi-protect it if necessary.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not apply to groups. If it did it would lead to absurd conclusions, like making it a BLP violation to say that Syria supports terrorism because that implies Syrians support terrorism. "New religious movement" is a fairly neutral characterization. It is not an NPOV violation to say that scholars describe a group as being an NRM anymore than it would be to say that they are known as a mainline Protestant group.

Sourcing problems are not a reason for deletion unless they are truly insurmountable.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a "List of terrorist nations" would last on WP. I'm sure that some sources have said the United States and Israel were such. BigJim707 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See State Sponsors of Terrorism.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To quote the opening sentence of that article: "State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to nations which are designated by the Secretary of State "to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[1] Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions. That's good sourcing. I tend to think that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would discourage the US government from issuing a similar list of "New Religious Movements." BigJim707 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When WP agrees that the US Government is the only reliable source then you'll have a good point. However I believe the current view is that scholars are the best sources on religious issues. My point, lest it get lost, is that BLP does not apply to groups. Descriptions of the group are not necessarily descriptions of the individuals. to use another example, we can say that the Catholic Church has sometimes turned a blind eye to child molestation without implying that Catholics are pedophiles.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly should report on the issue, but I don't think we should have a "List of pedophile churches." BigJim707 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP should have this list, it's an important topic. I have been trying to help with some of the problems by taking off items that did not seem to belong, based on information in their own articles. I think this is a better way to go. If sources cited in an article on the group say it's a NRM then it belongs on the list. Borock (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I usually take a very conservative views BLP but even I think this an overextension of BLP. As for the scope issue the term NRM and cult are interelated but do not mean the same thing and most importantly do not have the social connotations. The loose ways scholars use the term is a valid criticism of the field but not a reason for deletion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the nom undercuts his own argument against the list by saying that the label of "new religious movement" is acceptable as a category; it can't then simultaneously be POV or a BLP violation to use that label in an annotated list. See also my critique above of the nom's misapplication of BLP. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking that putting a category on the article on the group itself would be better than putting its name on a list, which has been done based on very thin sourcing here. At the very least it would give interest people one less article to watch, while giving readers the same information. All they need to do is click on the category and they get an alpahbetized list the same as this article.BigJim707 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't make any sense, because adding an article to Category:New religious movements is the same assertion of fact as adding a link to that article to List of new religious movements. If sourcing is sufficient for the former, it is sufficient for the latter, and indeed lists may be less stringent and less unequivocal in practice than categories because in a list you can explain inclusion nuances such attribution of opinions, qualifiers, or disagreements between sources. And as noted by Will Beback below, we do not delete articles just because they need improvement. To claim that this list merits deletion, you would have to assert that the very concept is unverifiable, which you are not saying and which you could not establish. You cannot delete it merely by claiming that there are some entries that are currently insufficiently sourced or even some that should be removed. It's certainly easier to delete it than to fix it or commit to addressing the ongoing problems that any potentially controversial article is prone to (goodbye, articles on George W. Bush, Barack Obama...), but that kind of laziness is a cancer at AFD and on Wikipedia generally. Do the work. Conduct some research. Discuss inclusion for contested entries on the article talk page. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that right now. Borock (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I would be more inclined to help myself if people were not calling me "lazy" or even "a cancer." BigJim707 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep—per Postdlf and above. see WP:LISTPURP for why the argument about lists v. categories is a red herring. also, regardless of whether some people mean "cult" when they say "nrm", the term "nrm" is well delineated and self explanatory. if the religious movement is new, it can go on the list, and we don't have to worry about whether some people think it's a cult or not. this is the accepted term in the academic study of the subject, and i see no reason to second-guess it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard you could put any church, religious school, religious charity, or whatever founded in the last 200 years on the list and the whole thing would be fairly meaningless. I think the Salvation Army is already included, or was till recent edits. BigJim707 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the key point for Christians is if the movement in question has added doctrine to traditional Christian beliefs, not the date when its organization was founded. If you imply that, for instance the "Mormons are a cult" controversy, you are (in the eyes of mainline Christians) defaming the members of the group. BigJim707 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view. But Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources. If several scholars say that a group is an NRM, then we shouldn't be engaged in our own debate of whether the description is legitimate. That would original research/synthesis.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigJim707, i don't expect to have to add "backed by reliable sources" as a qualifier to every statement that i make in an afd about appropriate content for articles. it seems to me to be understood. if there is a reliable source saying that the salvation army is an nrm, then by all means it belongs on the list. after reading the idyll of miss sarah brown i'm not so sure it shouldn't be, but nevertheless, it's really not my call. if you meant the possibility of including the salvation army as a reductio ad absurdum response to my reasoning, though, i think that's a weak argument.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend it that way. It seems that one source somewhere had said the Salvation Army was a NRM so it was put on the list. Its own article, also of course based on reliable sources, did not mention the topic at all. BigJim707 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons previously stated. • Astynax ^talk 17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not a fan of any new religions, nor too many of the old religions for that matter, but that doesn't mean we can pretend thay dont exist, This is a highly organized list, on a very notable subject, I feel deletion of this would be a censorship of information, why cant we just seek to find more sources, rather than just erase? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I came to this deletion debate with a clear mind as new is a vague term. What's the inclusion criteria? Clearly stated and sources listed to support it. Could someone argue that an individual entry might not meet inclusion criteria? Certainly, but that's not a reason for deletion. WP:BLP concerns are valid, but again must be adhered to, not a reason for deletion. WP:NOTDUP is so abundantly clear that I am still surprised the Category already exists argument is still made. The only plausible reason for deletion would be that this list violates WP:NOTESAL which the listed sources demonstrate is not the case. Ill-concieved and unsupported nomination.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - list similarity of a category page is not valid rationale for deletion, per WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When a list has useful sections like "by country", "by faith", etc., this makes it more than just a category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:14, 19 October 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.