Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctrine of Exchange


 * 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. John254 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine of Exchange

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

This article doesn't have any references to reliable, third-party sources, and therefore it fails our requirements on verifiability. Almost all the sources in the article are either primary sources (Scientology itself, or administrative/court decisions involving Scientology) or unreliable, self-published Web pages. I did a Google Books search and found only 1 relevant hit, which was a primary source (from a compilation of U.S. tax cases). Most hits for "doctrine of exchange" relate to economic theory and not Scientology. There are a handful of relevant hits on Google Scholar from law reviews, but these revolve around the legal questions, not the doctrine itself. We might be able to justify an article on Hernandez v. Commissioner, but not about this obscure belief, since the belief (as opposed to the legal questions surrounding it) doesn't seem to have been the subject of any substantive third-party analysis. *** Crotalus *** 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep. If a court ruling that acknowledges the doctrine is not a third-party source then what is it? WillOakland (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, with that as the only independent source, it's going to be a short article. WillOakland (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per verifiability requirements. Topic covered by international reliable, third-party sources Los Angeles Times and Times Online (England)  --Jmundo (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it has to be notable enough for inclusion, given the court case and newspaper references. My only concern is that the economic doctrine(s) is/are given their place as well. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:48, 16 December 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.