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. The consensus is that the sourcing does not meet the "significant coverage" called for by the GNG. Deor (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kropveld[edit]

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

WP:BLP that does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Minimal citation found in scholar, web, news search - nothing that meets BLP Notability criteria. Tgeairn (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Info-Cult, since that is what he is mainly known for, as per these sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] Jinkinson talk to me 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the Vice article is the only one that I would say is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and one in-depth source really isnt enough. Brief quotes in the paper or mentions in non-reliable sources doesnt cut it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- merge would have been an alternative - except the INFO-CULT article has been deleted by the nominator. I have now added another notable reference (and expanded the article slightly), which in combination with the VICE reference, demonstrates notability. Zambelo; talk 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any article with that name (INFO-CULT, INFO-SECTE, etc) in my history (or in the AfD archives). Are you sure I deleted it (not that I am technically able)? Tgeairn (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with the sources mentioned above, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Unremarkable academic with no extraordinary accomplishments or awards, and coverage that is run-of-the-mill, routine and trivial at best, and perhaps even lackluster. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His story was publishes as a book and subsequent award winning film. Pretty substantial coverage. Zambelo; talk 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our own source for this says "Well, I [Kropveld] was not physically involved, because I had just come down with pneumonia. One of my friends who was also there, Josh Freed, wrote about the experience in his book Moonwebs: Journey into the Mind of a Cult." The fictional drama Ticket to Heaven was based on that book. Even if notability were inherited (it is not), this would be seriously tenuous. Given that the book and the movie depict illegal acts it really needs a much better source as well (not one that describes the subject as "balls deep in anything and everything cult-related since before you were born") --Tgeairn (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another biography on a non-notable enemy of cults. The sources are unreliable, the coverage is thin at best. I found two more book mentions, [5] and [6], but all these do is mention the subject and his club--there is no discussion, nothing to write an article with. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The interview in VICE (which does not seem to be notable since WP's article VICE is about something else) is his own words to an uncritical young reporter. Borock (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another cult cruft. And I don't find a library of 2500 books impressive, my personal collection must be around 4000 volumes by now. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2014 (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.