Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and other religions


 * 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. Krakatoa Katie  10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and other religions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Scientologycruft and possible POV fork, as some of this material originally came from the Scientology article (where it was already in dispute). This article takes Scientology, props it up and makes it stand there as we go through a seemingly random list of religions, one at a time, and basically does little more than state that each of them have said negative things about Scientology at one time or another. (Well, duh.) I could do the same thing with, say, Woody Allen and other actors, or Britney Spears and other pop stars. It's flawed from its basic fundamental premise. wikipediatrix 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

comment: I wanted to summarize it in the Scientology article because the article itself was too long. I didn't disput the content of the section. It was a consensus there to move the content into a new article to reduce the size of the Scientology article. This article is mainly criticle because it is from the section "Controversy and Critism". If it would be deleted here it may be introduced in the Scientology article again what only stresses the length of the Scientology article wich is already too long. -- Stan talk 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It looks like there is significant referencing and notability here. (10) references and it is a most intriguing read as well.  Shinealight2007 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Weak delete. Disguised POV fork. Realkyhick 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . This is a POV fork with issues of original research, and seems to be somewhat promotional in nature.  Almost weasel flavored.  Best left on the Scientology web site, and kept off of Wikipedia. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to keep. I'm still not sure where the rules lie on this, and my concerns about OR and POV still stand - but if there are rules against forking like this, I'm more than happy to ignore them given these circumstances. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - a consensus was already established to create this new article here. The argument "POV fork" is ridiculous because a lot of critical stuff was removed from the Scientology article due to establishing this article and summarization there is only possible as long we don't delete the content here. Alleged POV in this article can be corrected instead of deleting everything.-- Stan talk 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Valid point, but I'll reserve the right to change my mind pending whether this concensus you note can be accepted for the purpose. I'm all for it, but I'm not sure what policy sez about it. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ideally, however, this should be renamed, as the phrase "other religions" makes Scientology sound like a religion.(RookZERO 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
 * You are WAY out of line here. Your opinion of Scientology's validity (or not) as a religion is irrelevant to this AfD. wikipediatrix 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is actually relevant, as such. Wikipedia needs to present a worldview, and as such, be cognizant of the characterizations of not just the United States, but also of other such relevant countries with regard to the organization of Scientology as Germany, France, England, etc.  Shinealight2007 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * It's not really that relevant. Wikipediatrix' point here was pretty well outlined - and the scope of this AfD is not to decide whether Scientology is a religion, regardless of how others feel about it.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but I think RookZero's point was probably moreso that the title of this article could be changed, not to establish anything about the Scientology organization within this AfD. Shinealight2007 02:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. AfDs not infrequently retitle articles where appropriate. That might be called for here.  It might be more in line with a global perspective, in which Scientology is often considered a philosophy (ie in Israel), a for-profit business (ie Britain, Germany, et al), or a banned cult (ie Greece et al).  Simply calling it a religion assumes that US tax status is equivalent to an end of all other views.(RookZERO 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Indeed, this is true, but general rule is that a move should be kept in the talk page of an article. My opinion here is that we should talk about whether this fork can stand on its own, and then if it can, then we can discuss whether this name or another is appropriate. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment this article seems to be two articles cohabitating: 1 about Scientology's purported position on the ability to be a member in good standing of it and another religion, and 2 about what other religions' views are of Scientology. If kept, it should be split because those are really very different topics to an external viewer (I don't know much about Scientology, but what a religion's precepts are should be a wholly different article than what other religions' views of those precepts are or of the religion in general). Sources could likely be found for similarly negative reactions from most of the other religions about Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and no doubt many more. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Carlos, that's a whole new can of worms here. Is such a thing valid for Wikipedia? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a can of worms, but not new here: first we have a series of which the current article is perhaps a part: Hinduism and other religions, Islam and other religions, Christianity and world religions, then there's the side-by-sides: Judaism and Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, and there there are surveys of the subject: Religious pluralism, Comparative religion. I would think that one religion's views on the precepts and practices of another religion that are reported in WP:RSes is valid - it's included in numerous articles already Judaism's view of Jesus, Mary (mother of Jesus), Transubstantiation, God, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's true that this material doesn't belong in the main Scientology article, since it is basically about the beliefs of other religious organizations with regards to Scientology. However, it is reasonably well-cited, with references to scholarly articles, media sources, and legal documents. The matter is prima facie notable, since it has been repeatedly covered in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the proposal to delete it is mere capitulation to (if not cooperation with) the Church of Scientology's continuing efforts to whitewash the facts of its history. Wikipedia does not cooperate with an organization's desire to whitewash its reputation. --FOo 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is deemed appropriate, but I do not see a need to comparehow one religion thinks about another religion.  This inherently leads to synthesis Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * it is not so much about "how one religion thinks about another religion" but more about the claim that Scientology is compatible with other religions. I agree that we don't need an article wich states that parishioners of one religion don't belief in stuff from another religion but the claim of compatibility may be worth mentioning.-- Stan talk 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are articles like Hinduism and other religions and Islam and other religions, so there is certainly room for an article even beyond debunking the claims of compatibility.(RookZERO 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Both the articles you mention are atrociously written, filled with unsourced material and OR, and littered with multiple complaint tags from multiple editors. Just because Bad Article X currently exists doesn't mean Bad Article Y gets a free pass. wikipediatrix 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Scientology is too big a subject to be contained in one article, therefore it is necessary to create forks. That some forks will appear to be POV is in the nature of subject matter such as this, and merging with related content (if such could be found) will only cause confusion. LessHeard vanU 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or possibly rename to Criticism of Scientology by real religions. Thin Arthur 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, do us all a favor and don't be a dick. We aren't here to discuss whether this is really a religion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The POV problem can be addressed by also moving the positive items on Scientology and other religions out of the main articles to this one. AndroidCat 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep of course it is POV, all religous comparision is POV. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Concerns are not enough to warrent deletion. See also Islam and other religions, Christianity and world religions, both are legitimate articles.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions.   — Sef rin gle Talk 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per sefrigle, couldn't say it better. ThuranX 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per Shinealight2007. Perhaps it could be retitled, along the lines of the example provided by Sefringle, Scientology and world religions, thus obviating the concerns about "other"? Robertissimo 14:01, 2 September 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.