Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and democracy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and democracy

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

This is a form of original research. Most sources are primary sources, and the only meaningful points made are through how Wikipedians choose to put the pieces together. There are other articles for any useful material to go in. It's rather normal that religious ideas conflict with the ideas of democracy, and it would be a mistake to make articles contrasting each religion with a different political systems and ideas. This has the potential to be a good essay, but not a good encyclopedic article. Rob (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but cleanup; the German and Dutch govt./court decisions make this a notable subject, but it does have an OR feel to it as written. JJL (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there may be an article in there somewhere, but this one is a mess. Mostly an essay and seems to express a POV. I'm not sure about the title either. I took a stab at making the intro a bit more encyclopedicChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An artificial topic for an article, that also appears to be a POV fork. Political controversies regarding Scientology should be (and are) dealt with in other articles, such as Church of Scientology and Scientology controversies (particularly the latter). The topic is already a mess that has just landed in an arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Better to keep this mess confined to a smaller number of articles rather than proliferate it further. Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment When i created that article, i did it, because: the relationship of SCN to democracy is more significant than the relationship of SCN to the internet or to psychiatry, since democracy regulates both areas in a way that displeases SCN... i dont care, if it is deleted or kept, but i wouldnt understand the reasons for its deletion... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue of what you're saying. Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where some people use the word "democracy" to mean "everything good and proper", and attach no useful definition to the term.  Please give the definition that you're using, and then explain how it regulates the internet and psychiatry.  If "Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system", then we can happily say psychiatry and the internet are not regulated by democracy (thank goodness).  Also, no major religion was founded by democrats or democratic principals.   --Rob (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he's pointing out that there are scientology and the internet and scientology and psychiatry articles and that this subject, is in his opinion, more notable. I think it's a good point and there are some sources to support it. As far as the definition, I don't think the article has to define democracy. That's not what the article is about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you think it's ok to use a word without an understanding of what it means? Normally it's not necessary to define a common word.  But in this case, the word "democracy" is not being used in particularly clear way.  Everybody knows what the "internet" is and what "psychiatry" is, and it's plainly obvious how those terms are used in their respective Scientology articles.  But the term "democracy" is *not* being used in Scientology and democracy in any way as it's explained in democracy.  Also, there's been no explanation of how democracy "regulates" psychiatry and the internet, which is the entire justification for the existance of this article.  Unfortunately "democracy" is an overused word, often used to mean "a system I agree with".  For instance, the former German Democratic Republic used the word "democracy" to mean something quite different than how it's used in the Federal Republic of Germany.  Opponents of the GDR were probably called "anti-democratic by the GDR.  We might as well have an article called Scientology and goodness or Scientology and evil; as I can easily find countless sources discussing how good or evil Scientology is.      --Rob (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the meaning of democracy is best explored in the democracy article. If democracy isn't being used accurately in this article I suggest correcting it. If democracy is treated in an unusual or inaccurate fashion by L Ron Hubbard or Scientologists, then sourced content making a point to that effect should be added. As our elected officials legislate health care and internet policies, it could be argued that Democracy is an overriding factor in controling how they are used. That may or may not be Homer's point. There seems to be some media coverage of the church's views on democratic institutions, government policy in general, as well as on various government's views and regulation of Scientology.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's, for the sake of argument, pretend you're right about what democracy regulates:  When Scientology faces comparable problems in non-democratic countries, would you put them in this article, or in another article, like Scientology and dictatorship.  Of the countries where Scientology has had problems, which are democracies, and which are not, and how do we tell?  --Rob (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ehm?! democracy: people go somewhere and vote for someone... that guy/gurl goes somewhere and votes for something then on their behalf... or: all people vote for a new rule... // surely western democracies regulate all areas of life (i cant knock at a certain door and force a certain inhabitant to shake me back and forth until i laugh; i cant publish what i want when i want it; i cant call myself a psychiatrist and shake my patients back and forth until they laugh again <-- people voted against that since decades/centuries)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and comment. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 09:52, 11 December 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.