Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology organizations


 * 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, given the continued delete arguments after the cleanup attempt. --Core desat 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Scientology organizations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is essentially a directory of telephone numbers and addresses of organisations; in my opinion, this badly fails WP:NOT. Was previously AfDed, the result was no consensus. I'm aware that other such articles exist (e.g. List of Ottawa churches), but at least they're not chock full of contact details. Oli Filth 12:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps if this was rewritten to be about the global spread of scientology it'd be ok Computerjoe 's talk 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Evb-wiki 12:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just a directory or contact list, rather than an actual article of any sort. Nick mallory 12:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia isnt a telephone directory, its an encylopedia. admin please note 2 of the 3 'keeps' are Scientologists, of course they should be allowed to have a say but this should be noted.Chrisp7 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly which editors are you accusing of being Scientologists, and on what grounds? The only keep votes I see here are Ombudsman, Elhector, and myself, and to my knowledge none of us are Scientologists. Furthermore, WP:ATTACK clearly forbids "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." wikipediatrix 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Chrisp7, now you've got me curious. Which 2 of the 3 people who voted "keep" do you believe are scientologists?  I know I'm not, and to the best of my knowledge Wikipediatrix and Ombudsman are not either.  What was your motiviation here for making this statement and where did you get your info?  Do you really think someone's religious affiliation should have a bearing here?  You don't have to answer these questions if you don't like.  I just think you need to be a little more careful on what you say and claim here.  A simple up or down vote with justification for your vote based on the content of the article is what is being asked for here, not whether or not you think certain votes are less valid because they come from people that you have misconcieved notions about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * That does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater --no valid reasons have been presented for that-- perhaps the best alternative would be to truncate or summarize the list of 'missions'. Ombudsman 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * speedy keep: This list is inherently quite useful and encyclopedic, due to the often unusual or mysterious pedigree and activities of many of the organizations (e.g., Cult Awareness Network; Citizens Commission on Human Rights).  Ombudsman 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:ILIKEIT WP:USEFUL. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Any person interested in researching any of those organizations may go to the respective articles. Also, the list is a de facto link farm.--Fahrenheit451 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Although I sympathize with Om's argument that this is useful in locating the activities of the organization, this all seems to be drawn straight from the Church of Scientology's own internet sites.  No secrets revealed here.  Mandsford 17:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete We're not a directory of Scientology organizations Corpx 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It belongs to Scientology websites or to local phonebooks, and Wikipedia is neither. --Goochelaar 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete We are not trying to create a directory. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Badly Violating the WP not a directory policy.--JForget 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and a heads-up to the closing admin to please note that the delete-voters are only criticizing some the content of the article in its current state, rather than simply whether a list of Scientology organizations is inherently notable for a Wikipedia article. Which, of course, it is. If the phone-directory nature of the article offends anyone, let them dive in and remove the contact information, but the fundamental premise of the article is what we are assessing here, not the sloppy way its content is currently handled. wikipediatrix 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The clear intent of this article is/was to list Scientology organization around the world, which is a violation of WP:NOT Corpx 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Majority of 'deletes' are not criticizing its current some of the content but all of it - because it is simply a directory, which Wikipedia is expressly not. Chrisp7 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with User:Wikipediatrix here. The directory info should just be removed, along with perhaps the listings for every mission in a particular region.  Instead of deleting this article should just be cleaned up to list each orginization with a small description of what they do and how they are related to other orginizations.  Let's not throw out a ton of good info because there happens to be phone numbers and addresses on the page.  I'm going to work on cleaning the thing up myself for a bit and I think everyone else should try editing too instead of just deleting entire articles that are useful just for bad content.  Bad content can be removed on it's own without deleting the whole article. Elhector 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Although it is useful information it would be better to do the list at another site and then include a link to it in the main article on Scientology.  The topic of Scientology is covered by over 400 WP articles as it is, which is a lot relative to the importance of the subject. Steve Dufour 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article serves as a directory and does not belong on wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patently a directory and no real possibility of becoming anything other; it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this list could be used for useful research and information. I just think it needs to be cleaned up and pruned a little.  But still, it could be useful.  I think it would be a waste to delete the article entirely. Elhector 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a directory of organisations which is a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Chrisp7 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes but anything that is a violation of a wikipedia guidline can magically become a non violation as they are just guidlines. I think this is a case where the info is useful enough to people to warrant bending the guidline a little.  Maybe we could remove the phone # info and reorganize this into more of a tree or chart showing how each of the orginazations are related to each other. This would no longer make it a directory but more of a giant org chart.  I don't think there is a guidline against orginization charts, but I could be wrong.  Again I think this info is useful due to the large ammount of orginizations tied into the CoS.  Info is useful for reseach purposes. Elhector 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOT. ~   Wi ki  her mit  19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. ElHector has drastically overhauled the article, so this is now a completely different critter than what was nominated originally. That shouldn't matter in an AfD, necessarily, but all the delete-voters have been speaking to the content rather than the concept, so.... wikipediatrix 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. WPD, your statement, "but all the delete-voters have been speaking to the content rather than the concept,"is not true.  Quite a few editors here comments on the concept of a directory not being suitable for wikipedia. --Fahrenheit451 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the content was what made it a directory.  It's not supposed to be a directory, that wasn't the intention originally.  The addition of bad and unecessary information to the article turned it into a directory.  It no longer contains this information and the article is in the process of being overhauled to make it better and serve it's original purpose IMO.  Elhector 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia should not be listing Church of Scientology branches, that is advertising. Such lists are already available on official CoS webpages, the CoS keeps them up to date, Wikipedia will not. Organisations are a different matter. Some (eg 'Sea Org') are not disputed, others (eg Cult Awareness Network) are claimed by critics to be part of the CoS but this is denied. The title is therefore itself incorrect, it is a list of alleged CoS organisations. Again, such lists exist on critical websites and there is no need for Wikipedia to repeat them. Cross references to all these organisations are made in the Scientology articles. That leaves us with the possibility that a list would be useful to Wikipedia readers and I don't think it would on balance, though I don't think Wikipediatrix's arguement to be flawed. --Hartley Patterson 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Elhector's work on the page has vastly improved it. Foobaz·o&lt; 02:39, 30 August 2007 (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.