Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CESNUR

CESNUR

CESNUR (edit | 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):
  1. A Reader in New Religious Movements
  2. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements - Page 101
  3. Cults: A Reference and Guide - Page 204
  4. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements - Page 76

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)

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)