Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead File (3rd nomination)


 * 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. czar 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dead File
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Third time pays for all, one hopes. In any event, this article fails WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, as well as the GNG with flying colors. Article has been notability tagged for over thirteen years. While being a barely intelligible rant is not a violation of policy, per se, this article surely qualifies as one. The second nomination frankly proffered no valid grounds to delete, and closed as no consensus. The first, however ... I’m saddened to see keeps from several veteran editors claiming that the article was adequately sourced, when it is obvious that they didn’t actually READ the sources. I just did. Obviously, official inquiries from both the UK and NZ governments are reliable. However, of the two reports cited, the Foster report does not mention the subject at all, and the Powles report does so only as a namedrop in its appendix list of documents. Neither satisfies the GNG, nor obviously does Scientology’s internal documents. (And were this ever so heavily and adequately sourced, it still fails NOR and SYNTH.)   Ravenswing     17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions: ,

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd delete... It needs sourcing and apparently has needed it for some length of time. In the current form it isn't really reliable. 400 Lux (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I hate just saying 'per nom', but: exactly per nom. :) As an aside, it's incredible this has survived not just for so many years but also two AfDs! Somehow I feel if this were written today, it'd get deleted as soon as it went live... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is an unreliable article that is not supported by sufficient resources. Reads like it has been copied from a manual of some kind. Whiteguru (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.