Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exscientologykids.com


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exscientologykids.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable website with no claims of notability. Just because there are sources that say the place exists does not make it notable. My db tag was removed. Corvus cornix talk  02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment CSD is not about notability but about significance. Coverage in several reliable sources meets that criteria. Here, we will discuss whether it meets the notability criteria. I will comment here when I've had a chance to look into it a bit more --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Kendra Wiseman, and perhaps to a lesser extent Jenna Miscavige Hill (currently on AFD here, seem to largely be notable (if they are) for their involvement in this website. I'd suggested that Hill and certainly Wiseman should not exist as individual BLPs but, if at all, be merged with this website. Another editor then created the article on the website.--Scott Mac 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets notability, I stopped counting after 10 Google pages of hits. On the first page is a link to ABC News Nightline. . --DizFreak talk Contributions 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply counting Google hits is virtually meaningless in terms of our notability guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per DizFreak and User:Phantomsteve.alt above.  He  iro 
 * Keep as a parent article of several marginally notable BLPs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that applies more stringently for daughter articles rather than parent articles. But that aside, the people in question acheived their notability by leaving the COS and being members of the website/group, which is the common tie, and framing the topic around the website and phenomenon, rather than the individuals, renders it more encyclopedic. Anyway, that is my opinion, you have yours and the closing admin will no doubt adjudicate on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - per WP:N coverage has to be significant. Here is the policy language: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Is the sourcing mentioned above more than "trivial"?  I'm not convinced that it is and am leaning towards delete, but I'd be glad to change my mind should someone prove otherwise.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply May I suggest you read http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1 or watch the interview on ABC. It's on Utube in several places.  Keith Henson (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's only one source. "Significant coverage means sources [plural] address the subject directly in detail ..."  Are there multiple sources with significant coverage?  I still fail to see how this meets the policy even with that one example - note that the article is a writeup of the show.Griswaldo (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I could go Meta on this business, but will stick to the obvious.  If you just want to delete stuff, why not go after some of the thousands of really minor sports figures?  Keith Henson (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DICK and WP:AGF, ok?  Corvus cornix  talk  22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Add a distorted version of WP:OTHERSTUFF to that as well. Can you please provide a policy based keep rationale.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is significant coverage by multiple RS, therefore meets WP:GNG. Examples:, . -- Cycl o pia  talk  12:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Casliber. -- JN 466  19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources appear to be there, so I think that we can safely say that this article won't be deleted.  There was discussion at Articles for deletion/Jenna Miscavige Hill about merging Jenna Miscavige Hill into this article, and considering that the notability of one is closely intertwined with the other, we should discuss whether the two should be merged after this AFD is completed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the cites present in the article satisfying WP:N...and Jenna Miscavige Hill should be merged & redirected to this article. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE has multiple WP:RS from sources that span a 2 year timespan which demonstrates sustainability of the topic.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2011 (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.