Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

: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. There is a clear consensus to keep. Since the article was expanded during the course of the discussion, there haven't been any compelling reasons raised to delete or merge the article, certainly not any that have attained any substantial level of support. On the other hand, the strength of the keep side, however you choose to measure it (arguments or numbers), is overwhelming. Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

=[[Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia]]=

:{{la|Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia}})

I noticed this article was created as a parallel to Zionist editing on Wikipedia (which is also up for AfD). It suffers from the same issues: WP:NOTNEWS and navel gazing. This information is already included in the articles Scientology controversies and Scientology versus the Internet; it's not notable enough to justify a separate article. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:*How did Cirt do that? I was sure I would be the only one to buck the trend... keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::He must be an involved administrator with a WP:COI. We must immediately report him to WP:AN and WP:AE. Bawwww;! Bawwww;! -- Petri Krohn (talk)

  • Delete Keep due to reliable sources that say it's notable. But still... But it's much better to be bashed on WP than in person, less painful. :-)Borock (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The article is only a few days old. I doubt it will become a decent article but am sure there is a rule about giving a week before nominationg new articles for deletion. Perhaps consider making it an essay? Stupidstudent (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The point being made above is that this is, basically, one paragraph of content, and that we already have an existing article that covers this topic overall, including already having a paragraph of its own on this very facet of it, that can be expanded as needed. Furthermore, we don't need a project-space essay like this when we actually have the arbitration case itself to refer to directly, as well as the Signpost. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No the point I was making was to give a new article a chance before deleting it. Thanks to Cirt's hard work look now. You can't expect every article to become a featured article in less than a week. Stupidstudent (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Regardless, that remains the point that was made above, and the answer to the question that you asked. I'm amused that you are trying to tell me how article rescue and article development work, kiddo. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete this is clearly a non notable article and looks like it was created as a "reply" to another article called Zionist editing on Wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::Could you perhaps explain the discrepancy between your vote here, above, and your "Keep" vote on the Zionist editing on Wikipedia article? Both articles are sourced to similar media stories. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:::"Zionist editing on Wikipedia" is a notorious phenomenon stretching from CAMERAs campaign, Jewish Internet Defense League campaigns, to the Yesha councils and My Israels campaigns and most likely many other organizations. There is a lot of information about this. This article: "Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia" is literally a couple of sentences that can be merged with the Scientology main article. This article was also most likely only created as a "reply" to "Zionist editing on Wikipedia". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::::If we strip away your personal opinion in what is "notorious" or your speculation about what is "most likely", it seems the only policy-based arguments for the differing votes is that you seem to think there is not enough material or sources for this article (vs. the other) - so if this article is expanded with more material an sources, you'd change our vote to keep? HupHollandHup (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::Its only connected to the Church of Scientology, so it can be merged to that. Its not notable enough to have a separate article. There are at least 4 pro-Israeli groups who have orchestrated campaigns at Wikipedia, all these should be merged to one article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:Keep per Cirts expansion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:I did a lot of editing to support Obama during the campaign, or at least to correct misinformation by the other side. I wasn't organized with anyone else though. Borock (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Definitely satisfies WP:NOTE. Has received significant discussion and coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Examples including [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Church+of+Scientology%22+%22Wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a] and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Scientology%22+%22Wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not Wikipedia news. Ample coverage elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Keep - You're gooooooooood, Cirt. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have started an initial framework, and added additional information from 10 different WP:RS sources. The article now has a chronological model, with subsections for years from 2006 through 2009. There is still quite a bit more to add, from an additional 100 sources or perhaps more. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - With Cirt's recent work, I don't think anyone can claim this is not notable, or has not received significant coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. At least not with a straight face. I encourage those who voted early on to review the article on its current state. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, HupHollandHup, very much, for your kind comments about my work on this article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I double HupHollandHup's remarks. Cirt has performed nothing short of a miracle with the stub I created. Phenomenal. There is obviously a lot more information about this than I had thought. Well done! Chesdovi (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much! Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: par Cirt's work. The reliable sources used in the article show that the subject is notable. --Europe22 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Whoa, Cirt put in some serious keyboard time on that, very nice. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Good well written article with good sources. News and other information that becomes noteworthy is always recorded in Wikipedia, and news thats directly related to WP or an WP article is as well and should be recorded in WP, as long as it's not self referential. The article isn't WP:OR and is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Important topic. Reliable sources. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is well written and properly cited. 99.153.162.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep - It's an exemplary article, in terms of style and sourcing. Cirt deserves congratulations for this work. If it were not sourced to reliable sources independent of WP, the charge of navel-gazing would stick, but it is, so it doesn't. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources establish the article as viable. This episode shows why it's important nowadays to have an article draft fairly complete before its posted or else somebody will nominate it for deletion far too quickly instead of trying to improve it themselves. Robofish, why didn't you do what Cirt just did instead of nominating it for deletion so quickly? Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of coverage in many independent sources, indicating notability. —fetch·comms 23:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per article meeting notability requirements. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets GNG perfectly. Kudos to Cirt. --Cyclopiatalk 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like this article needs to be nominated for GA status... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - due to Cirt's significant contributions to this article, it meets the notability guideline. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge Unnecessary Content fork, We have Scientology Vs the Internet where it would be a better fit. EPIC CFORK as I fail to see why it needs its own article. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - This is not encyclopedic in any way and imo this type writing is not what we are here for, awful naval gazing article close to outing. Perhaps there should be another article from the opposite point of view. Wikipedia editor writes, multiple anti Scientology articles under pseudonym Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete As flattered as I am to be mentioned in this article, this is really something that belongs on Wikinews. We should not be this self-referential. I don't see the encyclopedic content here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That said, I think this would be excellent on Wikinews, and it is a very well written article. I just think that the subject itself is fatally flawed for inclusion on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is one of the most notable websites, so sometimes it definitely happens that notable stuff related to WP is covered in RS, and thus we have to be self-referential. While we shouldn't actively navel-gaze, we shouldn't either ignore when our navel is gazed by external sources. --Cyclopiatalk 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment re Wikinews - Wikinews only accepts articles about recent (last 2-3 days) news. Without a recent news event to hang it on, there is no way this would be published at Wikinews, regardless of quality. BencherliteTalk 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be notable and well sourced. Heiro 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Cirt has done a fantastic job with this article; it is sourced adequately to demonstrate compliance with our policies and guidelines. See User:The Wordsmith/COI to put my vote in context, though. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - with the disclaimer that I'm named in it (not that I care). But this was huge in the media and is likely to be something readers would want to look up - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as there is plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with many external references, but the introduction should better get more "ref" tags.Jusjih (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks, I have added some citations to the lede/intro itself, for ease of verification for direct attributed statements. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep // Reaons: No valid rationale on behalf of proposer: 1. Neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:NAVEL apply. 2. Neither Scientology controversies or Scientology versus the Internet contain nearly the information given by article in question. 3. Alleged lack of notability not argued by proposer. 4. Specific notability given as a quick web search demonstrates. // Comment: Article should be renamed. // Morton Shumway (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep. Man, I wish all unpromising, seemingly-not-notable stubs could be Cirt-ized like this. 28bytes (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Over 69 sources, many of them specifically about this topic, such as [http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/29/why_wikipedia_was_wrong_to_ban_scientology Why Wikipedia was wrong to ban Scientology], are sufficient to meet the notability requirement.  Will Beback  talk  21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment What about an article Scientology and Wikipedia, which could cover both pro- and anti-Scientology activity on WP?Borock (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

:No, should be kept with the title it was initially created with. The vast majority of a preponderance of independent and reliable secondary sources deal directly with this specific topic. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

::I actually was thinking of a new article, not renaming this one. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Borock (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Ah, thank you for the clarification. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - if only all withered little stubs could be nurtured like this pretty sprout. ;) 70 refs? And all good? My word. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - due to such policies as WP:N....Claritas § 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Like all controversial articles relating to the editing of Wikipedia, this article is going to be pulled off the line again and again. Sometimes I don't get deletionists. It's a well written, relavent, notable article. Smashing the delete button is going to get Wikipedia nowhere...ResMar 17:00, 30 August 2010 (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.