Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard (2nd nomination)


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page violates WP:BLP as its intention and effect is to portray a living person in a bad light - disparaging them by the implication of their having a significant link to the Scientology movement, which is not supported by the facts. The only substantive facts - namely that Werner Erhard spent a brief time studying Scientology around 1968, and that allegations have been made that The Church of Scientology were behind attempts to discredit Erhard around 1991 - are already covered adequately in the Werner Erhard article.
 * CommentThe editor who created the article, and was the principal contributor to it, was sanctioned and stripped of his adminship for exactly this kind of thing Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466 - repeated and persistent BLP violations, and the person disparaged in this article was a frequent focus of his attention. The discussion and voting in the previous nomination for deletion focused on the notability of the subject and the adequacy of the citations.  I am not disputing these aspects; it in on BLP grounds that I am making this proposal. DaveApter (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be an unnecessary content fork from Werner Erhard. The information appears notable, but it doesn't deserve its own article - creating an unnecessary fork seems to inherently raise WP:BLP issues. A merge would be fine also, although the key facts already seem to be in the parent article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for all the reasons noted in the first AfD - still holding well. W.E. and Scientology articles are hard-fought between partisans on all three sides (=WE, Sc, and those who want the Wikipedia to work) and getting actual facts into the W.E. articles (etc.) is almost impossible no matter how well-sourced - so those articles end up being sparse. This article is very fact- and source-driven, and the notable ideas and facts are NOT in the other articles. If an attempt was made to merge these facts into the W.E. article, for example, the partisans would eventually remove them via a war of attrition. Here they have safe harbor, therefore, this article should stand as is. Ratagonia (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I just read the article again and I am at a loss to see any significant facts in it beyond the two which I summarised above in the nomination and which are covered in the main W.E. article, as they have been for some years now. The fact is that Erhard participated in some Scientology training during a period of intense ane wide-ranging philosophical enquiry. Should we have articles entitled Zen Buddhism and Werner Erhard, Taoism and Werner Erhard, Platonism and Werner Erhard, Heidigger and Werner Erhard, etc, etc?  Clearly that would be ridiculous, so why single out Scientology if not to smear him by association with a movement which is widely regarded - rightly or wrongly - as creepy and suspect? (Incidentally, I have no strong opinion on the topic of Scientology per se).  The principle that spurious association with Scientology was potentially defamatory was conceded on a debate some time ago relading to the List of Scientologists article, as a result of which a number of names (Erhard included) were removed from that list. DaveApter (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first part of the article can be covered in two sentences in the W.E. article. It is the organized attacks on W.E. by Scientology, the second part of the article that is of interest, and not well-covered in other articles. My opinion is because Scientology partisans grind down this material when it is placed in other articles, thus my claim that this article acts as Safe Harbor and therefore should be kept. Ratagonia (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The attacks by Scientology are covered to some degree in the Werner Erhard article; if the coverage there were expanded and the extra citations from this page inserted there, would you agree that this would address your concerns? DaveApter (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, thank you. Ratagonia (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete While I have done work on this article to make it less biased, I did so in order to balance the slanderous negativity that the article originally contained. While it has improved, I think that the article (even the title of the article itself) casts an unwarranted negative light on a living person and it should be deleted. The user who originally created this page was banned from editing this topic due to persistently placing undue negative weight in articles related to both of these topic areas. Connecting someone with Scientology when little connection exists has a negative impact on a person's life and it is irresponsible for us to allow that to continue. There is already info about this topic in the Werner Erhard article and elements of this article could be added to it.--MLKLewis (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Given: a) the provenance of the article (the fact that the user who created it has been banned from editing it), b) that the content is already covered more than adequately elsewhere, c) that it represents only a minute aspect of this man's life and doesn't merit an independent article, d) that it appears to have been written not to shed light but to link the subject to something perceived as negative, and e) that this is a living person, my opinion is the article should be deleted. I'm not a fan of Scientology or Mr. Erhard, but I am a fan of wikipedia. The use of wikipedia to craft articles that seem to have no other reason for being than to put a living person is a negative light damages the credibility of the entire enterprise. Nolatime (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a) The article appears to exist primarily for the purpose of connecting Mr. Erhard with an organization which connection the sources indicate he consistently disavows. b)  Many of the sources provided contain circular references (the secondary and tertiary sources reference the primary sources and each other) which reduce the weight of the citations.  c) Although many editors have acted in an attempt to create a NPOV, the article continues to cast multiple persons in a negative light (by direct or indirect reference).  In other articles where these same sources are used, WP:BLP has been applied more stringently and appropriately.  d) The article contains multiple tagged issues which are unresolved after three or more years of collaborative editing.  These issues are largely resolved in the other articles addressing the same subjects. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons stated by the nominator. For what it is worth, I suspect the "The list of scientologists" article exists for a similar reason. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:25, 10 December 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.