Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and sex


 * 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. John254 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and sex

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

This article is totally original research. There is no evidence, or even a claim made by a secondary source, that L Ron Hubbard's crazy opinions on sex are the basis of anyone else's views or behavior. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Scientology is notable, whether we like it or not. The article isn't Original Research, but it could use some more Reliable sources. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 400 WP articles on Scientology. We would be fine without this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we would be fine without this one. However the arguments used to open this Afd don't stand up to review. If there is consensus, perhaps you could work on merging the page as appropriate. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup, perhaps merge with homosexuality and Scientology. There is decent sourcing here, and the OR can be removed as there may be some WP:SYNTH here.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly fine article. Perhaps could be merged into something else but there is quite enough there for a seperate article. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many similar articles relationg to various religious organizations and how they are related to sex Carter | Talk to me 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I think Homosexuality and Scientology should be merged into it. Clearly notable and relevant. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it's bizarre that we have an article on Scientology and sex, but none on Christianity and sex, Islam and sex, or Judaism and sex, despite the fact that all of those religions have had influence over more people by orders of magnitude than Hubbard's cult, and views on sexuality have been a part of religious debate within them for centuries. *** Crotalus *** 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP does have articles on these, very important, topics. They might be under different titles. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, do not merge. -- Though the article relies a bit too heavily on primary sources, there are enough secondary sources, and the topic itself is broad enough to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: -- The editor who started this AfD previously nominated the Featured Article, Xenu for deletion - the result was "Speedy Keep", he also nominated the Good Article, ScienTOMogy for deletion, the result of that discussion was "Keep". In both cases, I highly encourage you to read comments about the inappropriateness of those AfD nominations, in both AfD discussions - particularly in light of the above comment by, "However the arguments used to open this Afd don't stand up to review".  Cirt (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In a discussion of the notability of a similar article, Homosexuality and Scientology, on that article's talk page (a discussion also started by ) issues of WP:POINT were raised by . DIFF  That discussion thread is a worthwhile read, in the context of an AfD and notability discussion on an article on a similar topic.  Cirt (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These series of time-wasting nominations are usually co-incident with issues in other articles involving a Salt Lake City resident. See also: User_talk:AndroidCat AndroidCat (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the terms of the deal I can not nominate any more Project Scientology articles for deletion right now. Too bad since there are about 400 of them, which is about 360 or so too many for the importance of the topic. (p.s. WP should not have an article on Xenu any more than it should have one on Bulbasaur, also a featured article.) (p.p.s. My bad. Bulbasaur's featured status has been removed. I guess the Pokemon community on WP is growing up. In marked contrast to the Scientology/anti-Scientology community.) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not how notability is determined on Wikipedia. Time and time again  has tried to make this argument, at times being called out by others for WP:POINT disruption in the process (as mentioned already below).  See for example DIFF where he complains about Portal:Scientology, which later became a Featured Portal, and more from that thread.  Then there is also this thread Scientology overcovered? - It's a long thread.  How many times will this user bring up this idea of "overcovered", again and again and again, before realizing that notability is determined on an individual case by case basis, as per the criteria at WP:NOTE, and that this type of discussion is WP:POINT disruption?  Cirt (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, do not merge. Religious viewpoints on various subjects are perfectly legitimate topics for discussion and this particular topic seems to be very much along the lines of existing articles concerning other religious groups - Christian views on contraception is the closest equivalent I know of. (See Category:Christian viewpoints for many more similar articles.) Homosexuality and Scientology shouldn't be merged into it; there's a whole series of similarly-titled "religion and homosexuality" articles (see Template:Religion and homosexuality). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability of subject is seemingly established by sourcing, and although it might, possibly, be considered reasonable to combine the content with the Homosexuality and Scientology page, such could be potentially disruptive of the links to that article elsewhere. I acknowledge that, at this length, it is potentially possible that the content could be merged to another article, but we have roughly 2 million other articles about which the same thing could be said, and I don't see anywhere near that many merger proposals. However, perhaps in time, such a merger with another article might be considered, depending on the development of the article at that time. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per ChrisO. Robertissimo (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is definitely a keeper. It is notable insofar as how scientology officially views sex.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above, and to keep to the origional AFD, I don't see it as origional reserch, it does need secondaries...but it is based on primary sources, and not unsourced observations about scientologists talking about sex.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:15, 27 February 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.