Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures

edit
L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I made a Good faith attempt to try to find any secondary sources that even mention "L. Ron Hubbard" and "Classic Lectures". I looked in 2 different news archives, and Google Books, and found nothing. Even with a regular Google search, I'm only seeing 344 hits, some of which are copies of Wikipedia. The majority of the other hits are to Church of Scientology affiliated websites of one sort or another. After this searching, I have not been able to find any coverage whatsoever in any secondary sources that discuss the subject of this article. The only source cited in the article itself at present is to what seems to be an advertisement for the works sold by the Church of Scientology's Golden Era Productions. (The link itself is inaccessible at the moment.) Cirt (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to L. Ron Hubbard as it's a plausible (albeit unlikely) search. No independent notability. faithless (speak) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to L. Ron Hubbard, see no real reason why the collection should have an article of its own. Rsazevedo msg 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think a better test of notability in this instance would be the test for books, i.e. WP:BK. Much of Hubbard's work is not in books but in his taped lectures. The notability guideline does include an applicable exception that would apply here:

    "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources."

    That can clearly apply here. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, yea, but no. See comments by the above users, re: "No independent notability." Hubbard has written lots of stuff, both science-fiction, and well, other things. Not all of it is notable, and the true test of that is whether one can find any reference at all to a work in any secondary sources that are not Hubbard's own work and not affiliated with Church of Scientology organizations. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I dispute your assertion that everything written by Hubbard is notable, as do other editors, above. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Golly. That is pretty final. I just made an argument for keep - no big deal. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, I do not have any other open AfDs. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI in the future please see either WP:SCN's talk page, or WP:SCN/AFD. I usually try to remember to give due notice in both places. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, sir. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Doesn't seem to exist per nominator, hence, not notable. Also, the title is unlikely to yield in search results, if any at all, very few. So no redirect is needed. And if we suppose this existed, does it really warrant an article to write about a certain compendium of some of his literature? I think not. And I disagree with that being applied here. While certainly some of Hubbard's literature is notable, this is not a specific book. So it's not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the web site for the series [2] it's just a repackaging, and they do not use the title of the article in any case. DGG (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now it reads like an advertisement, and states that "his lectures are now avalible"...but it really dosn't give any context outside of the fact that they exist. What was the impact of this spacific collection (not the lectures themselves, but this package). its kinda like making a seperate link for "diskworld by terry prattchet, the United states publications 1996 covers". oops, forgot to signCoffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Indeed, how could I forget to mention that? A new title is released each month, and can be subscribed to like a record club, with subscribers receiving a special CD unavailable elsewhere entitled Org Board and Livingness. — Sounds very much like an advertisement indeed. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not said why. Why do you think this article satisfies WP:NOTE? The Closing Admin usually is supposed to ignore comments which simply read like a "vote"... Cirt (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a why. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L._Ron_Hubbard_Classic_Lectures&oldid=1071022608"