Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult following

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult following

Cult following (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - indiscriminate listing of things that, in the unsourced opinion of whoever lists them, belong. No objective definition in the article, no objective inclusion criteria. Has been tagged for sourcing for months. Otto4711 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep --Remi 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - some cleanup may be called for, but it's nonetheless a notable enough topic to have its own article. --Redeagle688 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This article has been in place since October 2004 and in all that time not a single source has been added. If anyone was going to "clean it up" it probably would have happened by now. Otto4711 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as this [1] is a book about the subject. Remove the laundry lists though. Other cleanup as necessary. And yes, I know that may be unlikely to happen, and it's quite possible that the whole thing would be better rewritten from scratch. FrozenPurpleCube 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable topic. Arguing that an article needs editing has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate factors that should play a role in deletion debates. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, the argument is that the article violates WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NPOV because it is indiscriminate and has no objective standard for inclusion. Otto4711 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the topic is notable enough to be on the Wikipedia.
  • Keep: Is something having cult status hard to define? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? No. Tag it with source requests where appropriate and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 1 May 2007 (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.