Deletion of List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination)

Comment: I gave this a long thought and reading what people say here and on the talk page, I'm leaning towards delete due to the serious concerns about the |synthetic nature of this list. I think there is a problem when a term is a) ambiguous and b) controversial, so we should not bunch together groups that have been called cults for whatever reason. A detailed survey that would pay attention to the various reasons a group have been labeled a cult would indeed be useful, but that requires a bit of high quality |original research, something we should leave to experts. Or not, so an option would be to userify this list so that proponents could come up with a more careful construction, but this current mess should be deleted. Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT||WP:OR)

Comment: this . It is a useful navigational tool for anyone researching the phenomenon of cults; it also has potential as a development tool. The list has a well-defined inclusion criterion, i.e. groups referred to by |reliable sources as cults. I have no opinion on whether a post-1920 rule should be applied, and no comment to make on the presence of inappropriate entries. Such questions of content or quality are beyond the scope of AfD and should not be used as arguments for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:RS)

Comment: I have asked for feedback on /N about this issue as I think it is very complicated. I gave my impression of the debate, so if that was not fair, please add one comment Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#List_of_Cults_AfD|here describing the issues more properly. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the discussion here, and that's the main criterion for keeping an article. Any problems should be fixed by editing, though the whole article is very thoroughly referenced and I don't see any obvious issues with it. The criteria for inclusion are very clearly spelled out, so it's a perfectly good list (per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN)

Comment: List is cited and has clear criteria. Complies with all |list guidelines. Personal objections and  is not a valid reason to remove an article. --neon white
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The two biggest reasons being 1) |Patent nonsense and 2) #DIR|Wikipedia is not a directory.  The article is atrocious and can't be fixed as its multiple nominations have shown.  It is loaded with |SYN, |OR, and |POV.  It conflates the many different meanings of the word "cult" in the academic section and the media section is just meaningless.  The problem with this article is summed up in this quote (which happens to be the last words on the entry for the term "cult" in a religious encyclopedia): "The careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (http://books.google.com/books?id=6TMFoMFe-D8C&pg=PA122&dq=swatos+cult&sig=3mWMH5hTS9pkvg3Ltahy5VU0H-8#PPA123,M1 Encyclopedia of Religion and Society p. 123) There are multiple definitions of the term cult, even within a single discipline, they are used carelessly, even in academic journals, and this makes the taxonomy difficult.  Lists "are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as |Verifiability, |No original research, |Neutral point of view, and others." Wikipedia:Lists#List content provides “Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list.”  and “If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title...”  The problem is, because of the ambiguous, multiple and overlapping definitions of the term, the meaning can't be clarified.  The list merely becomes a POV magnet and ends up meaningless.  Wikipedia is not a directory.  Just because there are cults out there does not mean an encyclopedia has to list them, especially when the definition is so slippery and the list ends up just being nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:NON||WP:NOT||WP:SYN||WP:OR||WP:POV||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I don't think anyone is saying that cult|cults aren't a notable topic, unless I missed something.  This debate is about whether a free-standing list of groups "referred to as cults" under unique |WP-editor-created criteria should be here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)