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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Violates WP:Synthesis. This article brings together information on various interactions of cults and governments around the world without establishing the overall topic is notable. The information on the treatment of Scientology in Western Europe is already well-covered in other articles, as is the info on China and Iran. The material on the USA merely consists of reports of ordinary government actions that happen to involve individuals who are cult members. Individual articles on each issue would be more in keeping with WP standards, it seems to me. I don't think we would have an article on "Women and governments" or even "Jews and governments." Why have one on this? Borock (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, textbook WP:SYN. Brings together a disparate collection of relations between cult-like groups and national governments and uses them to cook up a general view of the relationship between the two. Can't be modified into a neutral and OR-free treatment of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yes, suppport for the nomiators comments - subject is vague and the topics notability is not even verified by the content. Anything that is not already covered in a more specific article and it worth keeping can be merged, but I don't see much, or anyreally, of that type of content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The information in this article is important, but as the nominator said it is already found in other articles. BigJim707 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this WP:SYNful article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the NPOV term is "new religious movements", but if that was the only problem, it could be fixed by a rename and editing. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An intersection like this makes sense in the Category namespace (and we do have Category:Government anti-cult measures), but really doesn't make sense in the article namespace. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear-cut violation of WP:SYNTH.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content to Religious persecution by country. I see... This all was renamed to Freedom of religion, for example Freedom of religion in the People's Republic of China. New record of "NPOV". Biophys (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-sourced, well-watched, and much-edited article. The POV is not so serious as to require deletion. Merging will destroy a useful history and dissipate the information therein. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As an alternate, move to Government regulation of new religious movements, Legal regulation of new religious movements, or the like. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blatant violation of the WP:Synthesis rule. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SYNTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2011 (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.