Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers

I moved the comments to this section to make this AfD more readable. -- негідний лють  ( Reply 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I object to the tally being kept at the top of this page, because most of the Delete votes were of my first draft version (I wasn't even finished putting it up before it was speedy deleted!) and not the current improved version by Alkivar. The page as it stands today is NOT the page that these people voted Delete for. Also, NSLE's vote is improperly counted as a straight Delete! Furthermore, none of the deletionists have, as yet, shown that they understand the purpose and function of Lists. If you know editors or admins familiar with the way of Lists on Wikipedia, please call this article to their attention, because removing this list calls the entire hierarchy of Lists on Wikipedia into question. wikipediatrix 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First, let's get one thing clear: do you object to the votes or the tally? You claim you object to the tally but your reasoning relates to the votes themselves. Secondly, I'm probably not as familiar with lists as you, but I do know they aren't repositories of external links. --Last Malthusian 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am merely beta testing the tally box in this particular AFD. If it is objectionable, feel free to remove it. Crotalus horridus 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, now that User:Wikipediatrix's concerns about people voting on the 'old list' are no longer valid (15 out of 21 votes [which is %71.4285714 of the votes overall] have occurred AFTER the list was redone) I'm going to add the tally box back in, assuming no one has any REAL objections to it. To head the flames off at the pass, NSLE's vote is unrelated to the tally box, and, wether or not we understand lists, is also unrelated. -- негідний лють  ( Reply 08:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I went to go look at who'd speedied it, User:Wikipediatrix (since you were complaining, and it probably wasn't fit for a speedy) and, here] we can see, that you tagged it as speedy when you started the article. -- негідний лють  ( Reply 08:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was initially against the box (albeit not particularly passionately), since AfD is not a vote. But as this debate has grown larger, I think it's very useful to have a concise summary of where everyone stands. Meatpuppets and suchlike can always be excluded from the box. If someone interprets it as some kind of 'scoreboard', that's their problem. Though perhaps a small disclaimer below the box would be in order - "Please remember that AfD is not a vote and that this box does not indicate whether an article will be kept or deleted", for example. A shorter version of that sentence could simply strip out everything after the wikilink. --Last Malthusian 12:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Last Malthusian", noting my examples, says that Sports Associations are more non-profit than religions, and that this somehow makes the difference whether to delete. I wonder how he/she feels about List of motorcycle manufacturers, List of scooter manufacturers, List of aircraft engine manufacturers by country, List of modern armament manufacturers, List of car companies that do not make FWD models, List of shows on the Food Network, List of major corporations in Pittsburgh, List of Singapore companies, and List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.? wikipediatrix 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All of those lists link to articles, not external websites. It's a he, for future reference. --Last Malthusian 17:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC) My apologies - the list of assets owned by Wal-mart doesn't link to many articles. (I did read the rest - I stopped at list of singapore companies because I got a network error at that point.) But it's still not comparable to the list that is under discussion here, as not every 'asset' is an external link. --Last Malthusian 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So, then, is the problem that each Scientology Center is an external link, rather than just a list, or a list of links to Wikipedia articles? I can certainly fix that, if that's what everyone's problem is. wikipediatrix 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If we go from a list of external links to a list of articles which consist of nothing but an external link and some Yellow Pages information, perhaps some would feel WP:NOT had been satisfied. But in my mind, we would have no additional encyclopaediac information, therefore no more reason to keep. --Last Malthusian 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So, in your mind, List of Ottawa churches should be deleted too? It consists of mostly red-linked entries. List of school districts in Pennsylvania is entirely red-linked. List of hospitals in South Dakota doesn't even link to anything but the cities. Are you really saying that a complete list of Scientology centers worldwide (which does not exist in simple list form on their own website, by the way) has no place on Wikipedia and is unencyclopedic? I think it's really sad that a useful and educational list like this could be deleted while self-indulgent tripe like List of drug-free Wikipedians passes an AfD vote. wikipediatrix 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are 22 churches in List of Ottawa churches that are articles in Wikipedia. I think if you get 10 Scientology centers to be named and survive as articles I'll switch my "weak keep" to just keep. There are no articles on the hospital one, but hospitals serve a much wider swath of a population. It's probable that there are more people in South Dakota that need hospitals then there are people who need Scientology centers anywhere. So not a great argument.--T. Anthony 06:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That said List of Ottawa synagogues is all red. Still they do have names for the synagogues. Do these centers have names? Do they just call their center "the center in Brisbane, the center in Vienna, etc"(How boring is that?)--T. Anthony 06:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm getting really tired of "but what about this completely unrelated article!" as an argument. To ask me, an agnostic Englishman, what I think about a list of churches in Ottawa is bordering on ridiculous. I don't care about it. If it was nominated for deletion, I probably wouldn't vote. If there was a gun to my head I would probably vote delete on all of those. As for the drugs thingy, that's not even in the main namespace. I'm not going to comment on a single more unrelated list that I've never even read, let alone voted to keep in an AfD, be it list of fishponds in Intercourse, Pennsylvania or list of schools for the blind in Fucking, Austria or anything else. If the Scientologists don't have this list, and you think it should be available somewhere, I suggest you send it to them and ask them to publish it. Or publish it yourself. Whether it's educational or not is debatable. What's not debatable is that this directly contravenes one of the policies of WP:NOT. --Last Malthusian 22:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You just exemplified my point, thank you! If there was an AfD on Ottawa Churches you say you probably wouldn't vote. But on the AfD for Scientology Churches, you not only voted Delete, but have spent much of the day arguing strenuously about it back and forth.  Furthermore, you keep citing "not a repository of links" even though you have already indicated that you would still want this deleted even if I took the links off! Does your dismissal that you "don't care" about Ottawa churches mean that you DO care about Scientology churches? Why are you so intent to delete this list no matter how many modifications are made to it? Scientology is inarguably notable, so tell me what you want this article to contain in order to satisfy you, and I will make the changes.  wikipediatrix 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you haven't come up with a new link, I'm going to stay on this one. Firstly, most of the churches on Ottawa churches are articles, with three exceptions, and a good number are bluelinked so it's a completely irrelevant comparison to this one. Secondly, there's a difference between caring about an article and caring about an article's subject. The vast majority of articles on AfD are there precisely because no-one cares about them. Thirdly, if you took the links off, the article would be completely empty. Surely even you will admit that a blank article should be deleted. 3.141-ly, ignoring the contradiction between asking what will satisfy me and telling me that nothing will satisfy me, I would possibly vote to keep a list that included some encyclopaedic information - i.e more than "something's here". It's as simple as that. --Last Malthusian 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's try and make this a bit clearer, shall we? Don't try to distract me with other articles. Don't try and dig out some prejudice about Scientology - I only have one motive for voting delete on this article, and that's WP:NOT, section 1.5.1. And don't imply that I'm a sad person for spending 'much of the day' arguing about it, which I haven't. Just please, please, tell me why this isn't eligible for deletion under WP:NOT. Tell me why it isn't a repository of external links. --Last Malthusian 23:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are some features of this list that might give it encyclopaedic value. Firstly, it is short and therefore surveyable.  Second, it gives a grasp of the distribution of the celebrity centres relative to tyhe ordinary centres, which is evidence that can be considered to be supportive of the claims in the main article.  Third, several centres have been involved in noteworthy incidents: this article could be a natural place to put pointers to these events.  I'm leaning towards keep. --- Charles Stewart 21:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The second point sounds like OR to source a claim in the main article - we can do better for a source than ourselves, surely. The third is somewhat valid, but sounds like a completely different article, and I think we should stick to the one we've got now. It can always be recreated if the new version is substantially different, as your imagined version would be. As for the first, being short doesn't really sound encyclopaediac to me... besides, it's surely short because it's incomplete. --Last Malthusian 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What I typed was unfortunate: I meant that there was content to this article that complemented the claims made in main article, rather than this article provided a source for those claims. --- Charles Stewart 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think a PD map of the world with red dots for regular centers, and blue dots for "celebrity" centers, would be infinitely more useful than a link-farm. If you're unsure how to find a map, and edit it, you can leave a message on my talk, and I'd be more than willing to help you. Just a suggestion (that probably doesen't belong in the AfD) -- негідний лють  ( Reply 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm persuaded that this is a better way to handle my point two, and since there is no news for point 3 it doesn't apply at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalst (talk • contribs)

AfD is not a vote
Just a reminder that an AfD is not a vote. I know it looks like one, and has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote. It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling. Which is why the opinions of newcomers and outsiders don't always get considered - they aren't representative of the wider wikipedian community.

The closing admin uses the page to make a decision. The raw numbers are a major part, even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No cosensus? Something wrong there....
This AfD acheived 25/10/3. That means there were 2.5 times the delete comments as there were keep's. I'm all for leaving it open ended, and 'no consensus'ing' it when there really is no consensus, however, in this case, it's pretty clear, that there was, and that it was for Delete. If anything, if 25/10 isn't overwhelming enough, I'd be up for letting voting go on for another day or two. It's my opinion that the closing editor may have made a mistake when closing this one... -- негідний лють  ( Reply 05:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll pop in because I think the box was maybe misleading. I wasn't able to add the names after Zoe for some reason. So although the pro people complained of it it might've made their side look misleadingly strong.--T. Anthony 08:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's exactly what happened. Can we ask someone to look at this again? --Last Malthusian 09:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you know someone to ask, go for it. I'm halfway tempted to re-open this on WP:DRV. -- негідний лють  ( Reply 10:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What part of "AfD is not a vote" did y'all not understand? Quantity of votes doesn't insure quality of votes. Several of the "Delete" votes were ignored because they said things like "I hate Scientology" and (my personal favorite) "Wikipedia is not for others". wikipediatrix 12:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Only one person claimed a hatred for Scientologistics, so "said things like" is misleading. And I can't find anyone that said "Wikpiedia is not for others". 'Several' means 'more than two', and you only have one delete vote that was clearly invalid. Conversely, many of the 'keep' votes were rather weak, mentioning that the article needs cleanup (so I expect there'll be a renomination soon if it isn't) and one rather nonsensical (Zordrac's "beautifully written" comment about an article with no actual writing whatsoever is surely the complement to Stifle's "I hate Scientologistics"). Diablo actually closed with 'no consensus' because he didn't feel that 65% was a sufficiently high majority. That's his decision, even if some of us disagree. We'll see what happens when/if it's renominated. --Last Malthusian 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "jtmichcock" said "Wikipedia is not for others". "T.Anthony" said "I'll admit I do hate Scientology". I used the word "like" as in "such as", meaning these were two examples of questionable delete votes, not that all other delete votes were just like these in content. Thought that was rather obvious, but oh well. wikipediatrix 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check I voted, albeit weakly, for keep. I think this article could eventually be something and is useful for a project. However "no concensus" I don't think is quite accurate. It should've been given more time to reach that, but I think as it stood the concensus was to delete. That might've changed, but I'm uncertain. And although I did say that about Scientology, I also agreed the "I hate scientologists" person should be discounted or not taken serious. In fact the first statement I put in the little box was that to highlight that that one person's opinion was based on prejudice. True I think scientology is weird and harmful, but I do not hate scientologists. The closest people I've seen to it struck me as being good albeit troubled people. Added to that for a time I tried to take out several unsubstantiated allegations at the David Miscavige article.--T. Anthony 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies T, I mistook you for one of the deletionists... wikipediatrix 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The three other votes all count with the keep votes for the purposes of determining whether there is a supermajority to delete. --- Charles Stewart 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)