Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerned Businessmen's Association of America

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Businessmen's Association of America

Concerned Businessmen's Association of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations on Earth. Are they all notable? I say no. This one is only two sentences long and just basically says that it exists. I guarantee that 99 percent of all Scientologists on Earth have never ever heard of it. Highfructosecornsyrup 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I wasn't aware that Wiki was listing literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations. Unlike many of the file-drawer-only Scientology organizations, this one is in use out in the world (and I'm curious how you would guarantee that 99% figure). Certainly the article could be expanded. AndroidCat 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Wikipedia "was listing literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations". But I don't see what makes this notable, neither from your answer or from the article itself. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per AndroidCat. Per HFCS's logic, we should remove any article about any one of the thousands of groups Scientology has created to forward its aims, purely because Scientology has created thousands. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you have given any policy or guideline that supports keeping the article. Android Cat's claim that it's "in use out in the world" proves nothing, so to say "Keep per Android Cat" only echoes the nothingness. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No assertions of notability. TJ Spyke 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making assertions here, I've spent the time adding to the article, including a link to the mentions of the CBAA in the U.S. Congressional Record, and a quote from TIME. I'll see if I can find something from the leaked IRS-Scientology Closing Agreement, and if that's not notable, what if I carve the letters CBAA on the Moon with a laser? (Wait, that's been done. AndroidCat 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why not just merge into Scientology. Seems like that where it belongs. I can't believe that many of the thousands of organizations are notable on their own. Montco 06:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per AndroidCat --Oakshade 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major scientology front group, still in use --Tilman 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I dont recall the They cant all the notable so lets just delete this one Policy?? Until then, I think the nom is a tad flawed  Glen  13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: As much as I think that this is a cool organization and as much as I would like every organization doing good work with Scientology to have its own article here I am not sure that it is sufficiently notable for inclusion but I lean toward keep. --Justanother 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AndroidCat. Futurix 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothingto do with notability. It ays nothing at all except that the organiztion exists. Worth an external ref from ScientologyDGG 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe notability is high enough. Sorry. MrMacMan 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The problem I have is that I can't see what's notable about this group. Simply being run by a cult/religion isn't enough for me - there are lots of such groups. What makes this group notable ? Not the Congressional Record entry - plenty of non-notable people and groups have been mentioned there. We need more. Useful to know, certainly, but not for us. WMMartin 18:07, 7 December 2006 (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.