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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends[edit]

Fellowship of Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article contains nothing resembling a reliable source regarding this organization. Prior nomination seems to have been a misfire. bd2412 T 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of note, the most extensive third party discussion I can find on this organization is several pages in a book titled Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers. bd2412 T 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I agree that the present article contains no information from reliably independent sources. Despite the considerable efforts of multiple contributors, the resulting seemingly-neutral language appears, from what I can glean about the subject, to be quite misleading about the nature of the organization. It may be possible to remedy errors of omission using information such as that in the book BD2412 cites (which, according to the Wikipedia article, Deadly Cults, appears to be regarded as a reliable one) but, failing that, I believe the present article is worse than nothing because it contains no indication of significant information that might be considered what actually makes the group notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've looked, and don't see anything about what these folks actually believe in other than on their websites. There is anecdotal material available in that book, but just that type of info would not provide a full picture, and may violate BLP, so, with only a primary source, BD2412 is probably correct. Because many deleted articles are found to contain defamatory or other legally suspect material, deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed. However, they remain in the database (at least temporarily) and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history unless they are oversighted. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.93.50 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article suffers from several issues: reliable sources, BLP, NPOV and probably notability. I've been an active editor and would have to agree that the main source about them is their own website, or the Deadly Cults book, which got the article listed in the BLP noticeboard. While not a cause for deletion, the edit warring, 3RR violations multiple page protections and mediation for an article with questionable notability could be considered. --Moon Rising (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (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.