Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology discography


 * 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. (Note: (Since an editor here expressed intention to edit the article if outcome was keep) Editing of this article may be subject to restrictions set by ARBCOM, please read the talk page notice before doing so.) JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology discography

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not cite any references or sources. Prod was removed, with explanation that "details" could be found in external links section - but the only two external links are primary source, self-referential sources. If the subject of this list is notable enough for inclusion on the project, and is discussed/analyzed in secondary sources - that is not asserted in the present state of this article. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out if the nominator is a Scientologist who is offended by the articles, or a person who doesn't particularly like the whole Scientology thing, but all the nominations today seem to have a common denominator. I don't see anything unencyclopedic about a discography or a filmography from an organization that publishes such things.  I can understand the nomination on Dead file, rundowns, Fear (novel), etc., but not this.  Mandsford (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should not make a difference who the nominator is. The fact is that notability is not established in the article's current state, and no secondary sources are given which analyze the subject matter.  Not to mention WP:OR problems as well. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep. Nomination seems a bit scattered; is the issue the lack of sources or the lack of notability? The former is correctable, and the latter doesn't make sense - the "subject of this list" is Scientology, which is certainly notable. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is both lack of sources and lack of notability. "Scientology" is notable, but that is not the subject of this article - the subject is "Scientology discography" which is not notable, and has not been discussed or analyzed in multiple secondary sources, and does not satisfy Notability.  Cirt (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep Seems to fit with list guidelines but could do with sourcing which i assume can easily be done. -- neon white user page talk 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which criteria from list guidelines are you drawing from when you say this article fits with Notability for list guidelines? Cirt (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Use common sense -- neon white user page talk 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But can you make a case for notability using criteria from Notability ? Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
 * from WP:N This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is a guideline ot a law. -- neon white user page talk 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: Verifiability is policy. Can everything in this list be verified to independent sources? Cirt (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary or self published sources should be ok for this. -- neon white user page talk 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to constitute the sourcing for the entire article they can't. That'd risk bordering on WP:OR and POV interpretations of those primary sources.  Cirt (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per NeonWhite and ZetaWoof Mandsford (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC).  Cirt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources.  "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  Well?  Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources?  Where?  Which sources?  That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator.  Cirt (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because there are no reliable sources (or, indeed, any sources at all) listed. Therefore, the list violates policy on verifiability. Without proper referencing, it may also constitute original research. The Keep arguments are not at all persuasive because they contradict basic Wikipedia policy, namely that we do not anoint certain editors as subject matter experts and give them permission to write articles that don't follow basic Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a discography is in a sense a derivative article, and if the works listed there can be documented, and the subject is notable, it meets the requirements. Otherwise all lists of works on all subjects, and by extension all bibliographies in articles, would need to be deleted. DGG (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: -- At the moment, the entire article/list and everything in it is unsourced WP:OR at any rate, and has been for quite some time. As such, even if it is not deleted, any unsourced/WP:OR information in the article that is not cited should be removed.  That would leave the article with - nothing.  Cirt (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no cites at all, difficult to verify, notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 26 January 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.

Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)