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. Opinions for and against are fairly balanced, but the nominator's withdrawal tips this to keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity

[edit]

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

Notability of this lawsuit not established by secondary sources. The sources cited are all primary: court documents and the blog of one of the lawyers involved. BigJim707 (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, it has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however non appear to be significant coverage of the subject of this AfD, and if taken in total I do not believe they would add up to significant coverage. The case has been used as a reference for multiple books, but this is a case and not a book so WP:NBOOK does not apply. Therefore, failing WP:GNG I have to hold the opinion (at present) for deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One click on books, and one click on [1] shows a secondary source that shows that this case has had long-term effects on society. The article already has 15 references. Unscintillating (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books listed only seem to mention it in passing, and were not used as sources for the article. Same with Google books, no real in depth coverage or discussion of this event. Borock (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JSTOR shows some significant discussion of the topic in the articles "Cults and the Ideology of Individualism in First Amendment Discourse", by James G. Zorn, in the Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1989), pp. 483-530, "Combating 'Cults' and 'Brainwashing' in the United States and Western Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne's Report" by Thomas Robbins, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 169-175, and at least more than a few passing reference elsewhere. A tweaked set of results for "Molko Unification" at Google books here seems to show additional significant coverage of the topic. Unfortunately, this seems to be more of a legal than general academic subject, and the databanks I have access to are more the latter than the former, but I have every reason to think it probably has at least one more significant mention, beyond the Zorn article, which would be enough to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's kept I will add some more secondary material. Borock (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of in depth coverage shows lack of notability, also this is really just a civil case of which there are hundreds every day. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major case from our largest state's highest court, which was a precedent. However, it needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's notability is established to be quite solid per Unscintillating, John Carter and Bearian. Hardly "just a civil case." Jus da fax 03:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Enough secondary sources have been provided so that notability is clearly established. Regardless of the fact that some of the "voters" seem to have been involved in the case. BigJim707 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2013 (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.