Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology as a science


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientology as a science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable topic. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:FRINGE. The article documents a claim made by Scientologists that hasn't generated any real debate. Article looks like original research and documents the times that Scientologists have made the claim that Scientology is an exact science. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite explanations I provided on Talk:Scientology as a science which refute Coffeeepusher's POV assertions, I believe it is pointless to continue. There is not a single article on Wikipedia which deals with the scientific and medical claims made by Scientology and their refutations/rebuttals by scientists and doctors. Apparently, no one is interested in such an article. So, while tons of garbage articles get kept, articles made by PR firms on behalf of non-notable characters, legitimate articles with a basis in reality should be deleted. Right? Delete away! Laval (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really curious what my POV assertions are in this case Laval? Could you please clarify.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Also, purely as an aside, I find it terrible that it's impossible to start an article and work on it gradually without being pushed to fill it up with dozens of sources to justify it, as has been done here. The article is about a subject that would take me, by myself, quite a long time to develop, and yet other editors, pushed for me to develop it overnight otherwise they would nominate for deletion or merging. And Wikimedia Foundation wonders why editors are dropping off one after another and questioning why it's become impossible to retain any solid, academic editors? Laval (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Laval, having verifiable and reliable sources along with a neutral point of view is one of the five pillars upon which Wikipedia was built, so its kind of a big deal.  In addition, those in academia are well-versed in citing everything they write.  Citing your sources is something you should always do as a matter of course.  If you need extra time, you can always write your article in user space until it is ready, then move it into article space. Editors do that all the time.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I have mentioned on the article talk page, it consists only of self published claims and is one sided. While the author alludes to other relevant aspects and sources, he has failed to introduce them. There has been no development of the article. I believe that if User:Laval wants to develop this article in the direction he is alluding to, but is pressed for time, he should go to a sandbox, or AfD, where he can tinker at his own pace, but not in main space. Ochiwar (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean AfC, not AfD Ochiwar (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On that note, I have waited several days to give Laval the chance to at least include these sources that they allude to. As I stated in the nomination, from what I can see the topic itself is not notable, meaning that there isn't significant coverage in third party reliable sources that would support a full article.  The sources provided are either primary sources, or aren't primarily about Scientology as a science, rather they mention it in passing.  If Laval has the sources they should add them to the article.  If the article is up to snuff before the AFD then I would withdraw the nomination, but by my research there aren't any sources, and Laval has expressed no interest in improving the article that they have created.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge: This article essentially amounts to a non-neutral summary of Hubbard's claims on the matter. These are best covered in the Scientology article and its sub-articles. Alternatively, the claims could be merged into article on Hubbard.Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete / Merge: this NPOV article may better be done by being deleted or merged into the L. Ron Hubbard article. As far as the content goes, it probably does not warrant inclusion or retention. The article appears to be largely unsubstantiated OR. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary sources galore. Not what's needed to indicate the notability of the subject. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2013 (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.