Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Since when does Wikipedia devote articles to magazine articles? Magazine and newspaper articles are not notable for Wikipedia articles just by virtue of their existence. It sets a disturbing precedent if it means we can now take any moderately known references (including the ones in this very article) and amplify them into Wikipedia articles of their own. Imagine if everyone on either side of any controversial issue suddenly started padding their case by giving Wikipedia articles to any and all news stories that aided their agenda. wikipediatrix 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, with current title. -- I suppose we could also have an article called:  Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc., et al., because it went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Church of Scientology lost their $416 million suit.  But at any rate this article is most certainly notable in its own right, if not for the suit, and all of the numerous sources that cite it, then also for the awards it garnered, including:  Gerald Loeb Award -  "distinguished business and financial journalism", Worth Bingham Prize, Conscience in Media Award, Leo J. Ryan Award, to author Richard Behar.  Smee 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Then let's change the name of the article so it's about the Supreme Court case, and not the magazine article itself. I can think of thousands of well-known prize-winning magazine and newspaper articles, but I don't think we want Wikipedia to be flooded with articles devoted to each one of them individually. Heaven help us all if those floodgates are opened. wikipediatrix 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has its own article. Steve Dufour 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a magazine article. wikipediatrix 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a pamphlet. BTW the "Elders of Zion" themselves, unlike "Xenu", do not have a WP article. Steve Dufour 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is precisely why this article is itself so notable. I am most interested to hear what others think.  My sentiment is still Keep, with current title, however, for reasons stated above.  Smee 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Strong keep. Clearly notable article, well referenced. The title is a bit tendentious but it is what the article is about and it's what people will search for. Even if the title is changed there should be a redirect from the current title. andy 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is certainly notable, even though I have very little respect for Time magazine itself. Steve Dufour 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a lot of notability about that situation between Time and the Church including the full-page ads that the Church took out in USA Today. I agree with Wikipediatrix about the inadvisability of having articles about sources that are otherwise non-notable, esp. articles about articles. I suggest a name change to Church of Scientology and Time Magazine. --Justanother 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep: Per Smee.  Name change proposal, if implemented, would simply encourage further newspeak.  Ombudsman 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A most intriguing reference/analogy. Thank you for providing your comment.  Smee 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Obvious keep under this title - the article and its subsequent litigation clearly satisfies notability guidelines. Otto4711 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep notable magazine article, with strong reaction by its target (anti-ads), and a notable aftermath (lawsuits, reprints, propaganda, harassment). Yes, sometimes magazine/newspaper articles deserve their own article. I'm wondering why there is no wikipedia article about J'accuse. However there is one in the french wikipedia. --Tilman 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename.   J'accuse was by a major & acknowledged author, was published in a political journal of high reputation, had a major impact on politics, and on history, was of spectacular rhetorical brilliance, and remains a classic testament to the power of critical analysis and writing. The  article in the French WP should make this clear to anyone with  a slight knowledge of the language.  Not a single one of these is true about this subject: I'd even say the exact reverse on every point. It had neither literary excellence nor political result. The controversy however is of significance and probably does warrant an article under a reasonable title such as that suggested by Justanother. The present article is somewhat repetitive, and the one in the French WP  of the expected clarity--I'd like to think we could fix this by editing, but I doubt anyone at our  WP can write at their level.   DGG 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Je suis choqué.  Steve Dufour 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * t least when writing in English (smile) DGG 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, did you want to make an argument for deletion that has a basis in policy? The question that must be answered regarding this article is not how well it compares to an article on another magazine or journal piece. It is not whether this article is written to the same level of competence as another article. No, the question that must be answered is whether this article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasn't clear; I was replying to a proposed precedent of a clear justifiable one on an individual article. I intended to say rename, on the basis that the article was not N, but the controversy was. DGG 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this is a good example of a magazine article that is notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't cave in to the scientologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.196.187 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2007
 * Comment - wikipediatrix, who nominated it for deletion, is not a Scientologist, in fact a critic of them. Steve Dufour 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Why delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.45.209 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2007


 * Strong Keep with current title - per Smee and Ombudsman. The subject's name is "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" and this is the name by which this notable, award-winning subject is known.  The subject's notability is established by the number of times which the resulting litigation from it by the scientology organization is cited in other libel and defamation court cases.  I do not know of any other magazine articles which led to the plaintiffs losing their $416 million lawsuit, or which also involved daily full-page advertisments in national newspapers in attempts to trash them.  Orsini 09:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

COOPER: According to a 1991 "TIME" magazine article, quote -- and I'm quoting from the article, "Eleven top scientologists including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing, wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations." A, is that true? And, B -- well, is that true? Because I mean, the critics of your organization say that you guys have a history of this, that whether this John Sweeney was a bad reporter or not, this is part of a pattern, that "TIME" magazine article certainly intimating that. RINDER: Anderson, the history of the church is a long history of the church. And certainly, there are things that have happened. Those people that were involved in those activities back then, they were thrown out by the church. They were dismissed from the church. That's ancient history. COOPER: That "TIME" magazine article, in 1991, which was a cover story, the writer of that article says, even in the course of his writing and his assignment, that he was -- he said illegally investigated by affiliates of the Church of Scientology. He was contacted numerous times by attorneys. And, in fact, "TIME" magazine, Time Warner, the parent company, which also owns CNN, was sued. And the case was finally thrown out at multiple levels. I think it went up until 1997 or 1998.
 * rename my instinct was to say strong keep but I think wikipediatrix makes a good point, this has a funky, news about the news, ouroboros vibe to it. I agree that the subsequent controversy deserves its own full wikipedia entry (can't wait to read it, however clumsily named it may have to be) but I question whether the original magazine article was significant enough to justify it being the exception that sets the bar in terms of notability for the potential deluge around the corner. Ideology should obviously not influence editorial policy, (much) but some forms of influence require a different kind of resistance to avoid getting sucked in. --Scriblio 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  — Scriblio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This article was the impetus and source for much criticism of Scientology throughout the 1990s, and is an essential landmark in its history as a result. --Modemac 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Modemac, and under current title. Robertissimo 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (with same title). I get what wikipediatrix was saying about opening the floodgates to other articles about articles, but I don't see that happening. Anyway, if the article is notable, why not have an article about it. An magazine/newspaper article should be treated like any other written work. If it's important then it should have a page. I know me, myself, followed a (non-wiki) link here to read about the topic. - Rocket000 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, there are hundreds of articles on TV episodes, why can't there be an article on a Time magazine cover story. Not to mention this article contain very useful information on scientology. Give the article is well written and well cited it should at least be merged into another article if all else fails. --Voidvector 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: -- Interesting note: Anderson Cooper 360 (Aired May 14, 2007 - 22:00   ET) --
 * I just find it very interesting and noteworthy to note that this article has not faded from the public view, and was cited yet again on LIVE TV on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. It is also interesting to note that Mike Rinder tried to downplay the litigation, and so forth, and yet Anderson Cooper emphasized the length of time that the litigation dragged on, and the facts cited in the article itself.  Just wanted to point that out as extremely relevant to this discussion.  Smee 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I just find it very interesting and noteworthy to note that this article has not faded from the public view, and was cited yet again on LIVE TV on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. It is also interesting to note that Mike Rinder tried to downplay the litigation, and so forth, and yet Anderson Cooper emphasized the length of time that the litigation dragged on, and the facts cited in the article itself.  Just wanted to point that out as extremely relevant to this discussion.  Smee 23:25, 15 May 2007 (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.