Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianetics 55!


 * 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. Veinor (talk to me) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics 55!

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

At present the only things that could be considered references in this article are links to external websites affiliated with the Church of Scientology. I searched in two separate news archives for "Dianetics 55!" - and both came up with zero results. Also zero results in an archive of book reviews. I found one hit in a scholarly article by John Weldon, titled Scientology: From Science Fiction to Space-age Religion - but even in this article the book itself is not analyzed or discussed at all, merely used twice as a cite. In a search of books I was unable to find any books that discuss/analyze "Dianetics 55!" in any detail - those that mention the book simply include it in passing in a list of Scientology books by L. Ron Hubbard. The only book that seems to mention anything other than a mention in passing of "Dianetics 55!" is a later reprint of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources not affiliated with the publisher of the book itself that significantly discuss/analyze/review "Dianetics 55!". A search for "Dianetics 55!" doesn't even return very many Google hits to anything other than Scientology-affiliated websites. Suggest deletion, redirect isn't necessary as it is not likely that people will be searching for this specific term. Cirt (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The only thing in this article that attempts to give context outside of the book itself is the Varrient text section, which could be murged into the main article, however it lacks any citations and appears to be origional Reacerch. Otherwise I too couldn't find anything that indicated notablility for this article, the only thing I could find where advertisements from book publishers.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, Scientologycruft. No hits on ProQuest, Ebsco, Infotrac, etc.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as cruft, and the well argued nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete only notable in the cofs.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 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.