- 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. Sandstein 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whole Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I have attempted to find references for this article that show that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE) - and here is what I was able to come up with: One passing mention in TIME magazine. A few very brief mentions in books - but only passing mentions of less than one-line and no significant discussion of any kind. These include one sentence in In Praise of Sociology by Gordon Marshall, a one sentence mention in Protestantism by G. P. Geoghegan, a passing mention in Cyberculture Conspiracy by Kenn Thomas, a few passing mentions in L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah Or Madman? by Bent Corydon, but these are not of significant discussion and mainly basically just WP:DICDEF stuff, one passing mention with no significant discussion in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements by James R. Lewis. Other mention: passing mention by Margery Wakefield in What Christians Need to Know about Scientology (not sure if this satisfies WP:RS). Zero results in searches of several database archives including Westlaw, LexisNexis, Infotrac and Newsbank. If the subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I was unable to find it. Cirt (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clarifying that my sentiment is delete, not merge or redirect. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does the subject overlap enough with Space opera in Scientology doctrine to support a merge and redirect? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Space opera in Scientology scripture could certainly use some work, but I'll leave it up to others if any info from here should be added there - of course it should be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. My take is that it's not really noteworthy enough for a merge/redirect, no. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noteworthy enough for a redirect? Almost without question. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't think so. It is not correlated enough with that specific article for a redirect to that article to be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what would you say is covered by "the whole track" that is not covered by "Space opera in Scientology doctrine"? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not whether one is "covered" in the other or not, just that they are different topics. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that that is a completely legitimate use of redirects, right? To guide people to the most nearly related article to the one they searched for, which doesn't have its own article? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I just don't see these two topics as being related enough for that redirect to make sense. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that that is a completely legitimate use of redirects, right? To guide people to the most nearly related article to the one they searched for, which doesn't have its own article? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not whether one is "covered" in the other or not, just that they are different topics. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what would you say is covered by "the whole track" that is not covered by "Space opera in Scientology doctrine"? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't think so. It is not correlated enough with that specific article for a redirect to that article to be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noteworthy enough for a redirect? Almost without question. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep It is marginally notable and there are some secondary sources mentioning it.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps but a "mention" is not "significant coverage". Cirt (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently it looks like a page created to expand on a single consept in the Scientology doctrine, and I don't really see anything of substance that isn't already covered in other articlesCoffeepusher (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the lack of citations from accessible, reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:24, 9 October 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.