Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology officials


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 05:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Scientology officials

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This duplicates part of List of Scientologists, because all officials are also scientologists. There is the danger that it will get less attention, and not be kept up properly. Somebody may update one article, and forget another. So, we'd never have anything unique in this list. Let's have one page, that will have more watchers checking it. Rob (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to List of Scientologists for the reasons stated above. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, I added the afd tag to the article, which the nom had forgotten to do.--Scott Mac 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no problem with this list. A list of "clergy" is very different from a list of believers. Indeed, from a BLP perspective, this list is less problematic than the general one, because this list has good criteria. If someone has "held an office", then it is almost certainly true that Scientology is a significant fact about them, whereas where someone "once" was a member or an adherent, it may mean little more than saying of someone else they "once" went to a Christian Church.--Scott Mac 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'm not arguing in favor of the broad list.  My main point is that I want a *single* page of Scientologists.  That list should exclusively feature people who are signficant to Scientology and vice-versa.  I dislike the notion of having every believer, including some people who happen to "try it out" along with a other faiths/beleifs.  Although, there are some non-office-holder beleivers, such as Tom Cruise, who really do belong on a list.  So, I suggest we delete this list, which is currently all redundant, and then, re-examine the scope of the original list.  Ideally, a single list, would feature prominent advocates and apostates, but not people with a private and/or passing interaction.  --Rob (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to merging this back into the other list, and maintaining the other list so as to include only officials, and other prominent Scientologists (that is people who are prominent AS Scientologists.).--Scott Mac 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * redirect Currently its an unnecessary WP:CFORK and is exact duplicate of material there. As the list is not long enough now but if starts it is taking up too much space then we can recreate this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per logical comment by, above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened to stepping back from Scientology?--Scott Mac 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have, but I also created this page itself, so thought would be alright to comment here, thanks. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a policy that people who don't post on scientology pages should not post on the AfD pages either? Or am I reading too much into the above comments?  Keith Henson (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Scott Mac (man I would never have thought I would have written this) . If anything it is unnecessary to maintain a duplicate in the full List of Scientologists while we can just link this sub-list -going to do it now. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: It seems that now List of Scientologists links List of Scientology officials. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this version, where it's a link in the larger article, to be a bad idea. If anything, it's going in the wrong direction, and we should combine names into a larger table (one table for current members, one for ex-, with a field indicating position).  There's now the likely-hood each of (what were) four tables will be spun-off into a separate article, which is an invitation to expansion.  Sub-lists are a good way of managing a sprawling list of names, but stopping the sprawl is even better.  Many people have List of Scientologists on their watchlist, but few have this sub-list on a watchlist.  That problem will grow worse if somebody spins-off the two ex-member lists.  Also, I think it looks odd, that we know have List of Scientologists that doesn't directly list L. Ron Hubbard as a member.  --Rob (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious that a cult founder is also a member. It's fairly obvious that LRH knew it was a scam.  Keith Henson (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting the founder shouldn't be listed as a Scientologist? Or, are you just trying to make a point, that has no relationship to this debate?  Seriously, I have no idea what you expect anybody to do with your comment.  Do you support keeping this article, merging it with the original, or doing something else?  Please let us know.        --Rob (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Respectfully and strongly disagree with Rob. Not all "Scientologists" are officials within the organization itself, and not all officials who have held positions within the organization were ever "Scientologists". Therefore, these entries should exist as separate lists. -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a CoS official of signficance who has an article on Wikipedia (or warrants one), that is not a Scientologist. --Rob (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sure. Volney Mathison, Norman Starkey, Joseph Augustus Winter, Monique Yingling, to name but a few. But that is irrelevant - the concept in my above comment is still exactly the same, regardless of whether or not one can wikilawyer that the venn diagrams do not match up. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if there is a *single* example, all you need to do, is add that name to List of Scientology officials and provide a citation to justify both the claim they were an official, and the claim they were not a Scientologist. You gave redlinks, except for Mathison, who's article doesn't say he was an official.  Also, given your new theory can you please explain why you edited List of Scientologists so that it was a sublist of List of Scientology officials.  When you did that, removed every single official from List of Scientologists, even people who are obviously Scientologists (Tommy Davis for example).  So, you were treating this article as a sublist, not an alternate list, which is what you're now arguing.  Also, while I acknowledge, there's a logical separation between being a Scientologist and an official, there's no need for separate lists, unless there's an actual verifiable example of it.  If you're right (which is entirely possible) then this should have been made clear when the pages were separated, and I would never have AFD'd this page.  --Rob (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I removed it as a sub-sect from List of Scientologists, as it is already present on that page in the more appropriate sect, the See also sect. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, are you now wanting to add the names of Scientologists who are officers to List of Scientologists? It seems odd, that currently people like Tommy Davis are no longer listed as Scientologists.  List of Scientologists lists minor members, and ex-members, but fails to list the most famous of members.  Rather odd.  --Rob (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An excellent subject of discussion, and quite appropriate to bring up with the community via a new subsection posting at Talk:List of Scientologists. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion belongs here. If there's no reliable information that anything belongs in this page (and not the main list), than this page should be deleted.  I think the fact we now have a List of Scientologists without the most famous of all scientologists, proves how harmful this sub-list is.  Ask the simple question:  was the old situation with one complete list better, or worse, than the current situation of two lists, with the main one being substantially incomplete? --Rob (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Worse. It introduced potential and inherent WP:BLP problems for the future going forward, as it implied that all officials are considered "Scientologists", and that an individual's self-identification within their personal religion or faith or new religious movement or what have you, was somehow relevant to and belonged on the same page as duties performed as officials within the organization itself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could remove Category:Lists of people by belief from the article, since it appears from this discussion that the list is unrelated to belief. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as discussed above, inclusion criteria for this list is completely separate from List of Scientologists and as such a separate article will be a good way to weigh the criteria for both.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It would not be appropriate to list non-Scientologist lawyers and other professionals who have done work for the CoS as "Scientology officials". If memory serves, Monique Yingling, referred to above by Cirt, is one such case. If Cirt's intention is to list such people here, then I would oppose keeping this list and favour reintegration in List of Scientologists. (For J. A. Winter see A Doctor's Report on Dianetics; Winter was an early supporter of Hubbard who fell out with him well before Scientology was founded. Norman Starkey is widely described as a member of Scientology's Sea Org.) -- JN 466  03:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they would only be included on this page if a WP:RS secondary source identifies the individual as having a role within the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why has this article been sorted into 8-10 different categories, including some that make only tangential sense? Most AFDs only have one or two   Pur ple  back pack 89    21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we move and discuss this comment on the talk page of this AFD, please? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 24 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.