Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology controversies


 * 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 Snowball Keep Everyone has voted keep.-- JForget  01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology controversies

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

This article is a digusting violation of half of our content policies. Some notes I've made about the article: It's articles like that which lower Wikipedia's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. By the way, don't bother with the "Look how many sources this article has!" argument. That argument has been tried and tested on other articles of the soapboxing kind (most Allegations of arpartheid articles), and they still got deleted. It fails to correctly get to the point of this matter: this is a hopeless soapbox with no chance of ever being POV on its own. Sceptre (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a summary of Scientology's less-than-savoury practices in the main page.
 * The controversy article was 60kb, half of the main page.
 * The controversies page has been problematic for over a year.
 * There's more weaseling in that article than I have ever seen, with statements such as "Critics say" or "oft-cited rumour"
 * The page is full of NPOV against the Church and allegations are flown around, with only one paragraph detailing the CoS' response.
 * I'm surprised this has been kept up, given the Church's ligitiousness (sp?)
 * Keep. Extremely notable article topic, and yes, it certainly does have plenty of citations to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Very useful article to tie in lots of sub-topics/articles together - though it could use some cleanup.  Cirt (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A controversy article on Scientology is valid because the Scientology movement has been... well... controversial. The nominations dismissal of "Look how many sources this article has!" looks arrogant, considering that the presence of relevant and reliable sources goes right at the heart of the notability and verifiability policies. To make it clear, the sources clearly demonstrate that this is a topic which is of considerable public interest and therefore notable. Three of the six points listed in the nomination are irrelevant to deletion. Weasel words, and NPOV problems are all surmountable. The last point about the church suing is a problem I'd classify as "very potential", and if the church did take legal action, that would be an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation, and not the community. Points one and two just shows that this is an example of WP:SUMMARY style coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really not so much of a summary, to be honest: a crude word count gives it 3500 words. And yes, weaseling and NPOV problems are surmountable, but there comes a time when the vast scale and longetivity of them means you'll have to see, "right, enough is enough". Sceptre (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article definitely has a lot of problems, but they're basically all WP:SYN violations. Many general statements are backed up by sources with more specific points -- such as saying "...has a reputation for hostile action toward anyone that criticizes it..." and sourcing that statement with 4 specific cases of intimidation. Sources/wording in this article needs to be changed so that it makes use of literature that's critical of the organization, rather than making originally-researched generalizations based on news reports. These issues are more than workable though. The topic is certainly more than notable -- Scientology is, after all, probably the most controversial religion, if not one of the most controversial topics overall, of our time.  Equazcion •✗/C • 09:04, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, extremely notable article and a seemingly bad faith nomination. Controversy is basically all there is to scientology for many of us living in the Xenu-free zone of Teegeeack. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. Our only defence against Xenu. But in all seriousness lots of third party sources and reputable news coverage. The article may need some work, but the whole of the Scientology project is a battleground of POV pushing. The article needs improving not deleting. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Viable topic, supported by sources, and the puzzling argument by the nom that sources are irrelevant comes across as an attempt at a variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the nomination as a whole comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there's an issue with something that's covered in the article, take it up within the article itself. And before anyone goes "would you vote for keeping Anglican controversies or Buddhist controversies", damn right I would, if they were sourced, etc etc. 23skidoo (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator put the article up after making a unilateral change to a redirect that was reverted: JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a notable topic.  The article may have problems, but none of them are reasons for deletion.  Klausness (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The issues presented in the article are, no doubt, notable and of encyclopedic relevance. It would be simply too much to merge this article on the main article on Scientology. Therefore, it makes sense to keep this article as a stand-alone article. --Abrech (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the nominator that the "Look how many sources this article has!" argument is detrimental to his case, and understand why he would set up a "straw man argument" in an attempt to discurage that line of thought. I agree that with all the WP:RS already contained in the article, this article is not only notable, but has all the internal mechanisms neccisary to fix any problems within the article.  additionaly this article is a main page for a subset of scientology related articles so deleting it would (sorta, i understand I am misusing the word but I think it works) "orphin" a block of articles, and the redirect that was done by the nominator would have cramed even more information into the Scientology page, which is already huge.  also I don't believe that we should edit in fear of lawsuits, just in accordance to the law.  Perhaps the nominatior would like to review the law books (in the US. and the UK) and let us know exactly what stature he is worried about us beeing sued for.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stub violently. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs appropriate templates like NPOV disputed (?) and needs more work. It's a public, emotive area. Editors just need to wrestle with the standard NPOV suggestions. DJ Barney (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and properly referenced.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Issues? Yes. Grounds for deletion? No. AfD is not for cleanup.  B figura  (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Oh give me a fucking break, really.  There are enough Scientology controversies to probably fork this article into sub-articles.  We do this for technical reasons as not everyone is fortunate enough to have broadband.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Best argument thus far, and something people need to remember. This probably started out as a section of Scientology, but got split off when it got too big. This practice tends to produce easy targets at AfD, but it would be best not to discourage such splits, since they are necessary for practical reasons. Maybe a nav template should be added to this and other articles to show that it's merely part of a Scientology series.  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:23, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. Clearly there are enough controversies to not only justify that we cover it but to also justify that we keep a seperate article about it. Calling the article disgusting is frankly not helping you either. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and documented. Yopie 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as a notable subject.--Berig (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are three issues here: is the subject notable, is it justifiable to have an article about the subject and is the article adequate? The subject is certainly notable and well-documented. There's far too much material to incorporate into Scientology, so it's a justifiable spinout article. However, I do agree that there are some major POV problems; the article badly needs to be cleaned up. However, that isn't, by itself, grounds for deleting an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs cleaning up, yes, but the topics dealt with are adequately sourced and notable enough to warrant a separate article. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOWBALL. Subject is notable. Reliable sources have discussed it at length. "Editors may need their heads banging together" is not a reason for deletion. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * speedy keep does this count as a scientology controversy?:) Merkin's mum 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - Why would there even be any question about this? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepDefiantly a valid article. May require some cleanup but in no way a deletion.Cdynas (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, and important. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD doesn't stand a SNOWBALL'S chance in a volcano stacked with spacecraft resembling DC-8 airliners then blown up with hydrogen bombs of ending with anything other than Keep (Sorry, probably quite rude, but couldn't help myself). I'll grant that splitting in this manner does create nasty potential for POV fork, but deletion is hardly the way to fix such issues. -Verdatum (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Most of the content is encyclopaedic and well-sourced. Merging it into the Scientology article is a bad idea, since the latter already stands at 115 kilobytes. Ayla (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The controversies surrounding the topic of Scientology are so notable as to make this AfD laughable. Yes there are problems. No it shouldn't be deleted. -- Good Damon 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sceptre, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I suspect this may be yet another unnecessary exercise in point making regarding the word "controversy" in article titles . Please stop. If that is not the case, this subject clearly meets notability standards and the references are both reliable and verifiable. Cheers, -- Simple  Paradox   22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment...??!??!? am I to read that this whole feasco was just an exercise in seeing if an editor could enforce a particular POV in the interpritation of policy that was shot down at the administrators noticeboard? Can we snowball close this AFD and get on with life?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep As per what User:Dance With The Devil wrote:
 * It should be noted that this is a frivolous nomination by a party on a crusade against controversial articles:
 * Featured_article_review/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy/archive2
 * Articles_for_deletion/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy
 * Articles_for_deletion/Scientology_controversies
 * Featured_article_review/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies/archive1
 * Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Trav (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm against deletion but I don't think there are any grounds to call this a frivolous nomination. Sceptre pointed out some very real concerns. The fact that he's nominated other controversy articles might just go to show that controversy articles need the most attention, and I would tend to agree there. Try to assume some good faith here.  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:36, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Scepter is a good editor, who contributes more positive stuff to wikipedia than I do, and this AFD should not take away from that. His summary deletion of this article through redirect did show that he was less conserned with bringing issues to light, and more conserned with making a point, and unfortunatly that point appears to revolve around the summary exicution of his interpritation of rules without consensus in a highly "contriversial" area of wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep 1. a summery existing is not a reason to remove an article. 2. size is not a reason for deletion.  3. AFD is not for cleanup. 4. yes, the article has problems (i would expect POV issues on a subject this contiversal), yes, it needs work, but no, that doesn't create cause for deletion. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious, speedy keep. A well-written and researched article on a highly notable subject. POV issues should be resolved on the talk page, not by nominating the article for deletion. As everyone else here seems to agree, could someone close this under WP:SNOW, please? Terraxos (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. This nomination is a disgusting violation of basic deletion guidelines.  The only issue here is maintaining NPOV, and that's a regular process of editing; deletion is not the remedy for that.  Deletion is a remedy for no sources or not notable.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per others here. All of these concerns brought up in the nomination can be handled via editing and article cleanup; deletion isn't remotely necessary. Rray (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and the nom is bordering on being WP:POINTY, as well. This discussion by Sceptre four days prior to the nomination is troubling. This is not the first time I've witnessed a 'Screw the consensus, it's my way or the highway' attitude from him, which is a reckless disregard of how this encyclopedia is supposed to operate. SashaNein (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Scientology is riddled with controversies and is a controversial subject in and of itself. This is a well sourced, verifiable, and useful guide to information on the controversies and criticisms sparked by the movement.  --GHcool (talk) 00:55, 18 April 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.