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 delete.  Sandstein  12:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRM apologist[edit]

NRM apologist (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)

Original Research Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for NRM apologist[reply]

• Delete This article is basically original research used to support/inflate/legitimize what is effectively a derogatory expression created by people aligned with the anti-cult movement. You can see this when you look at the edit note on the [first edit that created the page], "(Those dastardly evil-doers who whitewash the crimes of destructive mind control cults!!!)". In the time since the article was created the references are cherry picked like a word used in a book to, for lack of a better term "turn this into a thing" when it actually isn't really a thing. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I will add that I think this fails WP:Notablility. Most of the references are simply places where the word was used in passing in another context. Further, many of these instances are not even in locations that would meet WP:reliablesources. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is definitional in nature; violates WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails the policy on neologisms, and furthermore, given the title of the article it would probably be impossible to turn this into an article that satisfies NPOV. CJK09 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though perhaps moving to cult apologist as a better title. There are clearly many sources and if this was really not notable, given how well-known the concepts of cults are, one wonders why the article has survived this long without an AfD. Even incidental common usage by multiple independent sources establishes that this is a well-established phenomenon and well-covered in the literature. The reference to an "anti-cult movement" in the OP also raises some alarm bells. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the title back to Cult Apologist would be even more a violation of WP:NEO. BTW- The Anti-Cult Movment is well documented. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2017 (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.