Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Scientology


 * 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  Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus of the discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Scientology

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

Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. A tag was placed in January to improve the sourcing but no improvement seen. Justallofthem (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps I was trying to be too succinct in my nom as I have in the past gone very much the other way. If you examine the article you will see that my premise is not specious; the only (possibly) on-topic bits of the article that are sourced from reliable secondary material is the little bit about Quentin Hubbard possible being gay (how is that on-topic?) and that Scientology considers marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Perhaps deserving of mention in other articles, but not having its own. Cirt's analysis notwithstanding, this article is not well-sourced in RS secondary materials. It is mainly sourced from primary materials and is original research. I am asking reviewers to look a little deeper. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are actually WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources given in the article itself already, including:
 * Eric Townsend, The Sad Tales of Scientology, p. 65. Anima Publishing, 1985. ISBN 0-9510471-0-8
 * See also news, books, scholar
 * See also Template:Religion and homosexuality - with many other articles along a similar theme.
 * This is certainly a subject that has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and should be kept and expanded upon with additional info from other secondary sources, and the info reliant solely upon primary sources should be pruned - but AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cirt, just for an exercise, how does "Eric Townsend, The Sad Tales of Scientology, p. 65. Anima Publishing, 1985. ISBN 0-9510471-0-8" relate to the subject of the article? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. as per Cirt (talk) ←  Spidern  →  19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article seems even-handed, sourced, informative and entertaining.Red Hurley (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, three of those assessments work just fine for original research and, other than for trivialities, the article is basically sourced entirely from primary materials, another clear indication of original research. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that whole crowd of, um, Cirt, one "as per Cirt", and another. :) --Justallofthem (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Meets N/V; I see no real reason to continue the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Speedy keep. The fact that the first votes are keep is not a valid reason for speedy keep. No hurry. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but 2.5 ("nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question") is. That is, WP:AGF compels me to assume you failed to actually read the detailed references, rather than accusing you of intentionally misrepresenting them.  Regardless, it's pretty clear at this point that anything other than a keep outcome is vanishingly unlikely, since we're approaching WP:SNOW as well. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I could counter about !votes "which are so erroneous that they indicate that the has not even read the  in question". Laff. Seriously though, would you please analyze exactly what parts of the article are sourced in reliable secondary material and not in primary matter, remembering that the Minshull book is also primary material. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cirt's nice defense. Meets WP:N and more than meets WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having read both Cirt and Justallofthem's discussions on this AFD, I'm still going to go with Cirt. AFD is not the venue for discussing content issues, but whether an article is viable. There is no Wikipedia rule anywhere that quantifies how many RS'es are required. There is also a little thing called WP:IGNOREALLRULES that must be taken into account. On a topic like this, it is imperative that both sides be covered, and therefore primary sources are, in my opinion, not only acceptable, but necessary, as this article is about a particular organization's/religion's point of view. Also, given the controversial nature of Scientology, secondary sources may not necessarily be trustworthy one way or the other in terms of accurately describing the POV under discussion; at least if you see a sentence that says "Scientology believes XYZ" and the source comes from a Scientology manual, then you know it comes from the horse's mouth, whereas secondary sources are good for criticial response to that POV or third-party interpretation of said view. If anything, this article needs more primaries, along with more secondary sources. There are certainly areas that need improvement, and it must be checked for WP:BLP issues, etc. The subject matter is also legitimate because proponents of Scientology feel it is a legitimate religion, therefore (and I don't recognize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in citing this example) if we have Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, then a properly researched article on a similar topic relating to this religion is a perfectly viable subject, as long as WP:NPOV is maintained. 23skidoo (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * keep is a notable topic which has received much discussion spanning over decades, such as Travolta's recent appearance in Hairspray meaning some gays thought they should boycott it. Sticky Parkin 00:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I'd like to remind nominator that our decisions on whether an article should be kept or deleted should be based on the merits of the topic -- not the perceived quality of the current state of the article. Strangely, I don't see the nominator raising his concerns on the talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There are still no delete votes, so I believe this nomination is still a candidate for speedy keep. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I do find the absence of secondary sources establishing notability troubling. Jayen 466 13:48, 27 November 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.