Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard


 * 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 a wintry keep; strong consensus that the nominator's allegations of this being an attack page are unfounded. Regarding the delete/merge arguments that this information belongs in Werner Erhard rather than its own separate page: you are welcome to discuss these arguments in the relevant talk pages instead as outlined at WP:MERGE. Krimpet (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and Werner Erhard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is being proposed for deletion because it appears to have been created as an attack page intended to disparage Werner Erhard. It contains a large volume of information that was removed by concensus from other Werner Erhard Related Articles due to non-notability. Barnham 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep. You have to be kidding. This is one of Wikipedia's most anally-referenced articles, with 38 different sources and a reference tag at the end of almost every sentence in the article! I don't see any effort by you to address these issues on the article's talk page before going to this drastic measure, which smells like bad faith to me. wikipediatrix 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User Smee the creator of this page has a long history of POV editing on Werner Erhard related articles. This article was created to circumvent the discussing the issues on the Werner Erhard, Est and Werner Erhard and Associates articles.  If you look at the references provided in the article, with a few exceptions they do not support the point that is being made in the sentence. The article goes into depth on topics that are not related to the subject of the article.  While it would take a little time to look at the history and talk pages of these articles, it would be easy to see that this article was created as an attack page.Barnham 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't see it. I think this is one of Smee's best articles. Tell ya what, pick some of the best examples of these references that don't support the points (you know, we DO have a tag for that very purpose) and make your case on the talk page of the article. Not here - the talk page of the article. But it's still a moot point: an AfD isn't for arguing the quality of the article, it's for arguing whether the article's fundamental premise is encyclopedic and notable. wikipediatrix 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I know nothing at all about Scientology, but this is one of the best written & best referenced articles I've ever seen —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stong Delete This article has been created to attack. The article was created over night with material that a majority of editors on other pages agreed was not noteworthy in the article about the subject.  Many of the references used are not directly related to the statements they are supposed to support. Ebay3 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first reason is unsubstantiated, and none of the other reasons are valid criteria for deletion in an AfD. wikipediatrix 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * hard keep - i see no evidence of an attack, especially in light of the fantastic sourcing. the_undertow talk  23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I fail to see how this is an attack against either Mr. Erhard or Scientology, let alone their relationship with each other.  Article is very objective in its approach and does not disparage either Mr. Erhard or the CoS.  If somebody can explain to me how this attacks either party, please explain thusly.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As an outsider to the this subject having read the article and look at several references, I did not come away with the feeling of any POV, who are you claiming is attacked (edit: you seem to claim Erhard and I didn't even notice this)? It looks like facts have been presented. Some minor issues of if or not information is notable enough for inclusion but no reason to delete.--Dacium 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per wikipediatrix. Even some of our science articles aren't this well cited! Reads like a factual account and essentially all statements are referenced. WP:NPOV doesn't mean a balanced point-counterpoint nor does it require that an overwhelming amount of factual material that happens to point in one direction be excluded. DMacks 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong DELETE Although this article is well-referenced, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. There are articles on these two separate entities already, so why would there be a article on the combination of the two? There do not appear to be any articles about Scientology and other notable people who have taken Scientology courses. FreedomByDesign 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing appears to be thorough at a glance (I did not go through each footnote) and based on the 60 Minutes report and several books written on the subject, the interaction of these two appears to be an issue of at least some notability. The commenter above mentions that since there are articles on both of the factors, there is no need for this one, but this is a specious article if the interaction of the two is notable in itself (either as an event or influence).  An example of an "interaction" article would be The Rumble in the Jungle.  I don't think many would argue that the fight does not deserve it's own article just because both Foreman and Ali have articles of their own.  If there are POV issues, address them in editing, not in AfD, especially since Wikipedia as always cares what can be cited as true more than what anyone thinks is true. -Markeer 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is very well sourced and the objections to it seem to be based in embarrasment at the information revealed rather than any breach of established wikipedia policy.  If something can't be sourced then it should be edited, there's no justification for removing the article though. Nick mallory 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the allegations about this article are without foundation.--Fahrenheit451 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTABLE?? Wikipedia lists "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as a reason for deletion (WP:Deletion). This article definitely has sources but regardless of POV or NPOV, I don't think this article comes close to Wikipedia's threshold of notability (WP:NOTABILITY).
 * According to the guideline, "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." From what I have read in the sources and other articles, Erhard's links to Scientology are always brought up in the context of influences on Erhard and discussions about his exhile. Therefore, I think this is a topic best addressed in the Werner Erhard article in the "Influences" section (in fact, Scientology is mentioned in the Werner Erhard article). I worry about the precedent allowing articles like this that link two separate entries with the word "and" will set. Are we also going to see "Pat Robertson and the Religious Right", "Al Gore and Apple, Inc.", and "Ralph Nader and GM" as their own entries?
 * RESPONSE TO 'RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE' One editor pointed out that sometimes two different entries come together in noteworthy ways (Ali and Frazier in the Rumble in the Jungle, John, Paul, Ringo, and George forming the Beatles), but I would submit that such noteworthy interactions are nearly always given their own names instead of being referred to as "This and That" (Islam and Christianity meeting in the Middle Ages is called the Crusades) and usually relate two similar types (nouns, ideologies, or geographies). That is to say, you will see a person and a person (Lewis and Clark, Rogers and Hammerstein) but you won't see a person and a philosophy/religion (e.g., the article on Muhammad Ali mentions the Nation of Islam, but there is no article named Muhammad Ali and the Nation of Islam, nor is there an article named Jane Goodall and Apes. Such relationships are best related within the article about the person, not as their own; they are not "the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject." (WP:Notability) Scientology should be mentioned in the Werner Erhard article, but I do not think there should be a separate "Scientology and Werner Erhard" article.
 * DELETE Roccoconon 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - what's in a name? French and Indian War would not survive this afd if one were to delete based on this criteria. the_undertow talk  22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then definitely recommend we AfD Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. ClaudeReigns 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, since if both topics are noteworthy in themselves the connections between the two certainly are. Having a separate article also might establish a stalemate between Scientologists on the one hand, and est/Landmark people like the nominator on the other, allowing the maintenance of some balance and retention of critical information by others. If the article were merged, most of the information would slowly vanish. ER Talk  06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete this subject is just not notable enough to warrent it's own article. The material was and is still included in several articles where it is being discussed and worked on by many editors. While this article appears to be well sourced, when you follow the references and read them, they don't support what is claimed. Creating an entire new article because one editor doesn't want to address the discussion where it belongs is not apporpriate for wikipedia. It still is a biography of a living person and should be treated that way. See WP:BLP where it says: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies.

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Remove poorly sourced contentious material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.--Saladdays 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The obvious questions, again: 1. Can you give us any examples of these references that don't support the text? 2. Can you spell out for us specifically what sentences in the article violate WP:BLP in your opinion? 3. Why have you made no attempt to edit the article? 4. Why have you made no comments about your concerns on the article's talk page? 5. Did you know that complaints about an article's content are not valid criteria for deletion in an AfD? You say you think the article contains poorly sourced information. Okay, so fix it. It's interesting to me that none of the "strong delete" voters have made any effort to edit an article they insist so vehemently is filled with mistakes. Makes it appear that they don't want to improve the article, they simply wish it would go away for their own reasons. wikipediatrix 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Article documents a significant connection between the subjects and backs that up with strong sourcing.  Many of the complaints must inevitably cast doubt upon the motives of the complainer, I'm afraid, such as complaints that "The material was and is still included in several articles where it is being discussed and worked on by many editors" coming from the editor who made unliateral deletions of that material from those articles, or the simultaneous claim that it is "material that a majority of editors on other pages agreed was not noteworthy in the article about the subject" (by which logic it seems we could argue for any article's deletion by saying "the material is not noteworthy in article X", where X is some article other than the one under discussion.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

*Strong "Delete" or "Merge". It is clear that this article is well-sourced. The article DOES seem to cover a controversial topic about a living individual as the article itself states that Erhardt believed his life was threatened by members of Scientology, so it should be given a high level of scrutiny. It fairly deftly states points of view as the matter of opinion of it's source. What concerns me is somewhat on the lines of Rococonon above. I think it is an issue of redundancy, and balance. Should we not now call for an article on "Zen and Werner Erhardt", as Zen has been cited as a major influence on est and Landmark Education in order to have Wikipedia exhibit a balanced view of Erhardt's philosophy? Or must we reject that because the Zen Buddhists did not purportedly threaten Erhardt's life? Does controversy fulfill the criteria for notability? Then perhaps one of us better get working on an article about Lady Di and the Paparazzi. I find the criteria for notability confusing and it doesn't help that it is under dispute. Further, I'm not sure it's got the breadth I'd like for something like Wikipedia. I think there's something to be addressed about the definition of "encyclopedic topics". Ftord1960 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep then Merge With Prejudice The article is well-written, well-sourced and definitely notable. The problems including this critical information at Werner Erhard seem to stem directly from the WikiProject-wide edit war.  The necessary steps seem to be: block the appropriate users, clean up Werner Erhard, merge the article, protect the article.  Wikipedia should also immediately institute an equal and opposite policy to Fair Game to protect projects where a group advocates suppression of speech by any means necessary.  If means already exist and are sufficient to address such a thing, then they should be liberally employed, beginning with the deletion of single purpose cult apologist accounts. Obviously the article by name sticks out like a sore thumb. This is a reflection of the pathology of that ongoing edit war which siphons much needed editing resources from other related topics and from the project in general. In general it seems the problem lies in editing that is weak in sourcing and strong on nuisance. Bad for the project. Fix this at the Project level and above.  ClaudeReigns 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User Wikapedatrix asked that the asertion regarding the citations be supported. Here are three examples:

In the section of the article titled “Compared by Academic, Secondary Sources.” The first sentence says:

The press, media and academics have compared and contrasted the techniques utilized by The Forum and the Church of Scientology:

This is supposed to be supported by the next paragraph with three citations. The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church."[33] Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34]

Here are the misrepresentations in these three citations:

1) Sentence: The German Stern (magazine) has compared Landmark Education to the Church of Scientology.[32] Citation: ^ Soul Strip Tease, Stern, Germany, April 2, 1998. They consistently promise total control to the same people whom are then subjected to total control. A good example to read up on in regards to this is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Misrepresentation: In the cited article, Scientology is actually compared to something called “Block Training”.

2) Sentence: The Frankfurter Neue Presse, stated that: "They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church." Citation: ^ Green Party detects a scandal in hall rental, Frankfurter Neue Presse, May 29, 1998., by Kristiane Huber. Misprepresentation: This is an article about the rental of a hall in which begins sentence says: “Liederbach. They are suspected of having connections with the Scientology Church”. The rest of the article is commotion about the Green Party renting a hall to Landmark Education – There is no comparing or contrasting of techniques in the article.  The sentence is a generalization that is not attributed to a specific person as a quote.

3) Sentence Australia's The Daily Telegraph cited that The Forum has been described as "Amway meets Scientology".[34] Citation ^ Lalor, Peter. "Why you will find yourself at the Forum", The Daily Telegraph (Australia), February 2, 2002. Misrepresentation: The article cited here is very hard to find and the link provided in the citation goes to another Wiki article on the Daily Telegraph paper in the UK. The actual article that is used as a citation here has one sentence that says, "Cynics describe it as Amway Meets Scientology because of its new age philosophy and recruiting fervor.” Again this is a throw away comment that is not attributed to another person and hardly amounts to comparing and contrasting.  No comparing or contrasting takes place in this article.

Lastly the above three references are about Landmark Education, not Werner Erhard or Werner Erhard and Associates. Ebay3 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, take that up on the talk page. Just because you see three cites you don't like is not grounds to delete the article, it's grounds to discuss whether they need to be included in the article.  This echoes what was already talked about in this AfD: if you don't like some of the content, discuss and edit, don't delete! Putting up an AfD for an article with stuff you don't like is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per comments by Antaeus Feldspar. Ibanix 00:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per kind comments by User:Wikipediatrix: "This is one of Wikipedia's most anally-referenced articles, with 38 different sources and a reference tag at the end of almost every sentence in the article!".  Thank you.  I worked hard to source virtually every single sentence in the article to multiple citations from reputable secondary sourced material.  Smee 04:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * COMMENT: -- It should be noted for the closing Admin, that Users: User: ( talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] ), User: ( talk • contribs  • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] ), User: ( talk • contribs  • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] ), User: ( talk • contribs  • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • <span title="Block User:">block user  • [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ] ), User: ( talk • <span title="Contributions: ">contribs  • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= <span title="Page moves: "> page moves  ] • <span title="Block User:">block user  • [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ] ), have made few or no other edits outside this topic.  It is probable that other single purpose accounts related to this topic may jump on the bandwagon on this AFD as well, and this should be noted.  Smee 04:19, 2 May 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.