Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variant texts in Scientology doctrine

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. More than one of the arguments to keep concede that this article is lacking in sources - which ironically enough is the primary contention of the nomination. Shereth 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variant texts in Scientology doctrine

See prior discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered texts in Scientology doctrine. The article appears to be mostly WP:OR, and relies heavily on primary sources, and an WP:OR analysis of those primary sources. Has not received significant discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, though of course I am amenable to being proven wrong about this point, would love to see the sources that go into detail discussing this topic. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article just needs more secondary sources.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is your assertion that this topic has received significant coverage and discussion in multiple secondary sources, could you please provide evidence to back that up? Cirt (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced. If anoyone feels it needs more sources, that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article isn't even that well sourced at the moment. Edward321 (talk · contribs) - can you demonstrate that this subject has been significantly discussed in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I left notes for Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs) and Edward321 (talk · contribs) at their talkpages. I still think that this article and its topic do not satisfy the main point of WP:NOTE, namely that the topic lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of reliable sources establishing the significance of the subject. WillOakland (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a lot of information, the only problem is it lacks proper citing, something that can be fixed. Willvista (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it can be fixed, could you please cite a secondary source satisfying WP:V/WP:RS that discusses this topic? Cirt (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but unless an independent source exists (and I'll bet someone in the Freezone has made one) it doesn't meet WP:N. Even if it did, I don't think this article belongs here as it is getting past the level of detail needed about any religion. If lots of sources exist or this can be shown to be a major topic of discussion somewhere, I'll change. Otherwise Delete. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article references published materials which are the subject of the article, these can be confirmed by anyone wishing to verify the voracity of the article. Those I have checked are correct. As to level of detail I cannot understand how anything can be too detailed. As to discussion what is stated is fact, Scientology text does vary over time and this is demonstrated by example. It is not matter for discussion it is undeniable fact. (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Dire13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

At present the article does not show that the topic has been discussed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, as per WP:NOTE: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you cite any secondary sources that do discuss the subject in depth? Cirt (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete At first glance I was about to close this discussion as near-unanimous keep. Now that I have read the article and the discussion I am convinced that the lack of a response to Cirt's well argued nomination and polite requests to keep !voters to produce reliable sources establishing notability indicates that this article is of questionable notability Dire13 argues that the texts whose notability is in question undeniably exist, but I do not believe that this is enough to keep, as we need reliable material with which to verify the content of the article. Fahrenheit451, Edward321 and Willvista argue that sourcing is a surmountable WP:PROBLEM, but we cannot use this alone as a rationale to keep articles as it allows well-written but unverifiable articles to be included in the encyclopaedia. The burden of proof for reliable coverage is on the inclusionist. Trusting Cirt's expertise in Scientology-related matters, I default to deleting the article unless proof of notability is forthcoming.Skomorokh 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails any test of notability. What we have here is a fringe of a fringe that has only lasted this long because we are overly-tolerant of criticism of Scientology and overly-quick to ignore all rules in the area of criticism of Scientology. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skomorokh, but as no consensus instead of keep. Indication of notability is just lacking. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:57, 24 July 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.