Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network

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. Good job to those who found the sources. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network

No notability asserted in this vanity entry for a non-notable group claiming to be "committed to educating and facilitating communication about destructive mind control". Take away the self-congratulatory puff-piece press-release material and there's no article left. No references, no notability, article even admits that they've kept a "low profile" since 1995. wikipediatrix 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They don't seem to be much more than a detractor of Scientology. Doesn't make 'em notable, it just makes them detractors of Scientology. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep. Seems they're notable after all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just detractors of Scientology, failing WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although the article's style is unquestionably laden with self-promotion, the exact query ""Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network" turns out almost 18,000 hits on Google [1], albeit admittedly nothing that could be called a solid source (although it has passing mentions at the Library of Congress, several colleges, and Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance). It's a pretty borderline case as far as notability is concerned. What is clear is that the article is stylistically absolutely horrendous in its present shape.--Targeman 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it only gets 212 Google hits. The rest are duplicates and not unique, and they're largely spam, blogs, amateur anti-Scientology sites and Wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a question of settings, but I consistently get 17,700 hits when I click on my link and 212 when I click on yours. It's the same query! Weird... :-(??? --Targeman 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to click through the listings until you reach the end. In all Google searches, the unique hits peter out long before reaching the officially stated amount of hits. Unique hits are what matter, because it's the nature of blogs and many other sites that a story is self-linked to on a sidebar, causing one page on one site to generate hundreds of "hits" by itself. wikipediatrix 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK :-) You wouldn't believe how many WTF moments I used to have when I'd arrive at the end of the list sooner than I expected. Thanks for explaining one of the deepest mysteries of the universe. ;-) --Targeman 03:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's low google score under this name is because it may be more often known as FACTnet- under that name a basic google yields 111,000 hits.Merkinsmum 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually 774 unique hits, and many of them are not about the same organization as this one. wikipediatrix 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've begun adding references, which it badly needed (and weren't that hard to find) and I expect to add some more. That's takes care of the reference and notable objections. After that, the article would need a style cleanup and pruning, but that's easy enough to do. AndroidCat 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Lawrence A. Wollersheim. FACTnet is Wollersheim (and perhaps Arnie Lerma, another Scn detractor) but what is very interesting is that there is no mention of Wollersheim in the FACTnet article and likewise no mention of FACTnet in the Wollersheim article. Take from that what you will. FACTnet is Wollersheim, see this and see this. Wollersheim is notable and has an article. I see no evidence that he and Lerma's personal Scientology attack site is notable. --Justanother 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It even has a strong mention in the Guardian [2] a very good source to have. I wouldn't say it was just a passing mention either, as it is one of the main protagonists in the debacle.Merkinsmum 16:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My old high school marching band got a 'strong mention' in the New York Times and several other newspapers in cities where we visited, but that doesn't make my old high school marching band notable for a Wikipedia article. Anyone can start any kind of club or group and garner some mentions in major media if they send out enough press releases. I see no evidence that Factnet is a "real" nonprofit organization any more than half of Scientology's own pretend groups. Though they claim to be a non-profit organization and are asking for donations, I see no official statement of their 501(c)(3) status, which is legally required for real nonprofits. wikipediatrix 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by official statement? Guidestar lists FACTNet: "Contributions are deductible, as provided by law. A Form 990 is available for this organization." (Guidestar now requires registration for further information.) AndroidCat 14:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, nonprofit status of any flavor does not necessarily connote automatic notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did. wikipediatrix questioned that they were an actual non-profit group and I responded. Besides, the current number of added refs put them over the notability line already. AndroidCat 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So noted on the links. Thanks for the pointer. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sourcing. The article however, needs some major overhaul for NPOV--but that is no reason for deletion. . DGG (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not sure about notability per WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've heard of them, had them bookmarked for years (as FACTNet), and there are sources given in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cull the overly positive tone in which the article is written. I'm not sure it rises to vanity status (did the subject write it?), but it's definitely a bit POV. The Scientology stuff seems relevant to the article about it vs the internet, so if the article is to be deleted I recommend at least incorporating said info into said other article. I do know that an article with references from CNN and Guardian has very likely passed the notability test. Anynobody 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References look good to me. Anonymouse3 12:37, 9 August 2007 (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.