Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology as a business


 * 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 of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientology as a business
"Scientology as a business" is somewhat of a POV title, and indeed POV subject, to the point that I cannot see how this article could be worded neutrally. The article is rather anti-Scientology in POV at present. As a consequence I think it should be deleted, perhaps also merging to other Scientology articles in part. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as POV fork. Information is well-sourced, but this belongs in Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs)
 * In response to JChap2007, unless I'm very much mistaken, Scientology is exactly where this material started, making this the opposite of a POV fork. Respectfully, I have to disagree with Nicholas; I agree that looking at the issue of "Scientology as a business" may be exploring a particular POV that is not shared by all sides, but so is looking at the issue of "Scientology as a religion", which is a POV not shared by all sides either, but which is explored in detail at Scientology.  There's a lot of responses I think we could consider -- merging back to Scientology, renaming to Scientology as a financial entity, merging with other "Scientology as a ______" information -- but I can't defend the idea of deleting it because it's too POV a concept to explore, not when other equally POV conceptions of Scientology are given not only space but much more prominent placement.  So, I might change my vote if someone suggests a better plan, but for now I really have to vote Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speey Delete per WP:CSD A6=> "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". --Rob 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't meet that description. This article serves to document the fact that Scientology, particularly as represented by the Church of Scientology, functions to a very real extent as a business.  This is the conclusions that multiple courts of law and several government reports have come to; to lump discussion of a subject that those inquiries have treated seriously in with "Rob Jones is a total meathead" attack pages is just ... really, a very grotesque abuse of the system. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole article was in fact written to disparage the subject. No, its not like most other attack articles, but it is still an attack article, as definied in the policy.  If a similiar article were written about a religion with less opposition at Wikipedia, the word "grotesque" would be used to describe that article.  Wikipedia should not favor or disfavor any individual religion.  Your POV on Scientology seems to have the votes on your side.  But votes can't change policy.  --Rob 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, in short, you want to rewrite the A6 criterion, and replace the very limited "serve no purpose but to disparage" criterion with the far broader "is perceived by some to disparage no matter what else it does." You state "votes can't change policy" as if it were those voting other than speedy delete who were advocating a change in policy.  I agree that Wikipedia should not favor or disfavor any individual religion, and if any other religion were to be noted so many times in so many legal actions and government reports to be operating more as a money-making enterprise than as a religious institution, then it should be noted about that religion as well.  But what you are proposing is that Wikipedia should favor Scientology over other religions by hiding this information, which we would not do for any other religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is part of the Scientology series, and has a valuable place in Wikipedia. "Scientology as a business" is not really a POV title, IMO. --Neverborn 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The title of the article is not an allegation - every religion has certain financial activities that make it a business (in broad sense). Plus information about financial activities of the "church" of Scientology is widely accessed and confirmed. Futurix 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Documenting the business aspects of the complex group of Scientology companies is hardly meant to "disparage the subject", and the costs to members are part of that. It's less subject to editor interpretation than arguing Scientology theology. As for the "grotesque" angle, well .. Vatican Bank AndroidCat 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete When the Church of Scientology proves it is a successful business, then it would deserve such an article and not until then. Terryeo 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weren't you the one arguing that the correctness of the Church of Scientology's doctrines could be inferred from the millions of dollars it has in real estate? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And you'll be happy to know that the Church of Scientology says that it operates 3000 churches, missions and groups in over 120 countries around the world, and in just the publishing business, has sold many millions of publications translated into 65 languages. AndroidCat 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Church has tried to prove it is not a business. Remembering to sign my post this time. JChap 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Scientology is a business, since it charges money for services rendered.  Therefore, it is useful and encyclopedia to include an article about this side of the thingy. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well sourced and factual. Given that the majority of countries still view it as a business and the US did up until 1993, it is a perfectly acceptable article. -- Eliotyork  02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eliotyork. This is a valid content fork. Most of the editors on this AfD so far are members of WikiProject Scientology (including me, although I haven't done very much.) Grand  master  ka  08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. In what sense is this POV?  Check Wikipedia's own definiftion of 'business'.  The content of this page is a truthful, useful and valid resource.  It is my own POV that scientologists are wilfully undermining reason, logic and semantics in order to promote an incredible confidence trick.  That this article is up for deletion is evidence for my beliefs.-- Levi  02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC) --The previous vore was actually cast by User:194.105.174.77 (talk • contribs). User:Levi exists but has no edits. --ais523 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Incredibly weak keep - I was content to see this article deleted, but think it does add some information which the Scientology article perhaps does not- maybe a merge would be more effective here? EVOCATIVE  INTRIGUE   TALKTOME  |  EMAILME  |  IMPROVE  ME  16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it could, perhaps, be renamed Perspecties on Scientology and expanded but then it would tend to dwarf the main Scientology article. Probably best to keep it as daughter article dealing with specific facts and issues like Criticism of Coca-Cola.  Eluchil404 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article needs to be further developed. Hubbard himself sometimes stated Scientology was not a religion. Scientology doesn't present itself as a religion everywhere it offers its service. Hubbard's infamous quote "make money, make more money..." etc. The business aspect of Scientology is important since it helps understand the undisputed controversial nature of the Church. Raymond Hill 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Useful information, if poorly formatted. Perhaps merge with the main article on Scientology? CameoAppearance 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This page saved my life and that of my family. It opened my eyes to the real story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment votes from IP address-editors cannot be counted.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   17:30, 1 July 2006 (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.