Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science


 * 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  No consensus (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After an extensive search, I could not find significant discussion of this article's subject, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Zero hits in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. Zero hits in (3) different databases of archived news articles, save for 2 which were advertisements put out by organizations affiliated with the book's publisher and the Church of Scientology. No significant discussion in scholarly works. Mentions of "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" in books do not discuss the book or review it in any sort of depth whatsoever, but only briefly mention it in a list of Scientology-related publications, or briefly note the date it appeared as an article in Astounding Science Fiction in a passing mention. Virtually all of the hits from a simple Google search lead back to Scientology-affiliated websites or booksellers, not to any sort of in-depth analysis or discussion in secondary sources. Whatever brief discussion of this there is (as I was not able to find significant discussion in secondary sources) should already be discussed in the article Dianetics. As it is extremely unlikely that individuals would be searching for "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science", there is no need for a merge or a redirect IMO but rather recommend deletion. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (or merge & redirect to Dianetics) – This is notable enough to be linked from (and the original source quoted in) several other articles on Wikipedia, as well as having several hits on Google Scholar (though I haven't had a chance too look at how extensive the discussion is in those sources). I think that this is a worthwile article to have, that between primary and secondary sources has enough verifiable information to be worthwhile as a separate article. &mdash; λ (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No significant discussion appears to be given in those scholarly sources, as I had already mentioned in the nom. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's really nothing more than passing mention of this in any of the sources, then I'd be willing to support merge & redirect to Dianetics. As 23skidoo points out below, the author is notable, the publication is notable, and the church/cult founded on the principles introduced are notable, so there's adequate notability to keep it as a separate article, but as such a small stub without much more to say about it, merging is fine by me. &mdash; λ (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Extremely important milestone in the history of Dianetics. Don't know why the nom say it is not mentioned anywhere, probably because the full name is rarely used. However Google Books shows 184 hits for Science Fiction" + Dianetics. That is hits in books not web hits and by a quick scan it seems many are relevant. A very nice article could be made here but meanwhile certainly notable. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect Google Books search, which yields results not directly related to this book. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conversely, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" at Google Books gives 61 hits, and as I had already stated in the nom, most are only a passing mention, included in a list of works published by the Church of Scientology, and are simply not enough of an in-depth discussion of the book "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" itself. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cirt, we are not talking about a book here, we are talking about a magazine article. There may be some confusion there. If this article is intended to be about the first exposition of Dianetics in Astounding then it is notable indeed and my search was fine and shows notability. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" is the title of this article, and "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" is the book that this article is about. And I was unable to find any book reviews of either the article or the book.  Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, is the article named correctly? What was the title of the Astounding article introducing Dianetics to the world? That article is extremely notable even if the later book is not. That article is what the 184 Google Book hits are about and seeing as Dianetics was incredibly popular in the 1950's I am sure that press from that era would mention the Astounding article also. There is no question as to the notability of the article - much more notable than, say, the 1991 Time article that you did so well with. I am sure that you could make a nice article here instead of AfDing if you cared to. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:FA-rated article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" has been discussed in-depth and in significant detail in numerous secondary sources, book, etc. "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" has not.  I don't see how we can have a stand-alone article on "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science" when there are virtually no secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that discuss the work in any detail.  Cirt (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * IDK, did you look at the 184 books that Google came up with? The Gardner book looks interesting. How about Google Scholar? 74 hits there. 26 hits in Google news archives and that is only recent. What about news from the 1950's? Here is one hit from the NY Times, July 1950. All due respect my friend but I think you are not trying. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is going in circles, and thus I will refer to my first reply to your initial comment that your search terms are incorrect and do not go to this specific article about "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science". You can have the last word. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can have the last word then why did you take it by repeating your argument. But go ahead, you take it. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have faith in Cirt's ability to research properly and recommend we take his advice. Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect to Dianetics - it's important in coverage of the subject and needs at least a mention of verifiable information about it - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of any reliable sources regarding the contents of the article or the book, as opposed to their mere existence. WillOakland (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly redirect. Importance is not of primary importance, significant coverage in reliable sources is. So far, there has been no indication that such significant coverage exists. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being redundant . . . IDK, did you look at the 184 books that Google came up with? The Gardner book looks interesting. How about Google Scholar? 74 hits there. 26 hits in Google news archives and that is only recent. What about news from the 1950's? Here is one hit from the NY Times, July 1950. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I gave your searches the benefit of the doubt, and gave them a look-over. They are all of the type Cirt mentioned. They typically don't contain much more than a statement of fact that the first Dianetics article appeared in Astounding, even that Gardner book you mentioned. None of them go into any detail about the contents of the article. I happen to agree with you that the article is important in Scientology, being the first introduction of it to the world, but it's only notable for the fact that it was first. That's a notable fact for another article, but there's just not enough content in reliable sources for it to merit an article of its own. -- Good Damon 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Mon. My point is simply that the article in Astounding is extremely notable and the numerous mentions of it speak to its notability. Certainly some off-net research would be needed to make the article into much more than a stub but that is not reason to delete it. There is no real reason to delete it. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that an article like this could ever become much more than a stub. Everything about the subject's content is covered elsewhere, and while I agree that the fact of its existence is notable, I'm not sure it should be a separate article. It's part of the history of Scientology, and perhaps deserves the first spot on any Scientology time-line. But there's not enough material about the article subject itself to expand it beyond a stub, at least that I can find so far. My suggestion, if you'd like to change my mind, is to dig up some of that "off-net" content and get it into the article post-haste. -- Good Damon 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I'm open to being convinced. -- Good Damon 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable article by a notable author in a notable publication, which is linked to the founding of a major (if controversial) movement in the US. Plus it was expanded into a book later. It can always been expanded, but I feel this is viable as a standalone article. 23skidoo (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Keep as the original article on the subject. "not more than a stub" is not a reason for deletion. We do not reject short articles. DGG (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skidoo. Everyking (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crit and WillOakland. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (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.