Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology Public Relations

A well-sourced, informative article could be written on this topic, but this isn't such an article, and frankly I don't think those writing such an article would even find this stub to be of much assistance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite The current article as some POV issues that needs to be cleaned up, and the entire article can use a good rewrite. But the topic is notable enough for a standalone article based on verifiable third party sources. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This could be (and, I think, already has been) covered in other Scientology-related articles. Paddles ^T_C 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any useable information into Office of Special Affairs or Scientology controversy. After merge, delete or redirect to Office of Special Affairs. The existing articles are far more comprehensive and far less POV then this article is. Paddles ^T_C 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per POV powder keg. This info should remain within them main scientology article which can give it the best avenue for NPOV content.205.157.110.11 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite As said above this article has potential. So why delete it? There is such a culture among some "delete hawks" to get rid of articles if they are poorly written. This should not be the case. People should take matters into their own hands, or contact the authors. Nlsanand 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite as per above. Orsini 05:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this article is a joke, and an obvious one if you know anything about Scientology. The user who created this article calls himself "Lord Xenu." If you read about Xenu you will see that "Lord Xenu" created this out of malice either towards Scientology or Wikipedia or both. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You are not assuming good faith by attacking the original author on the bases of his username. Comment on the content of the article and its notability, not on the author. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? How dare you accuse me of making a personal attack. You are the one who fails to assume good faith. You are either not clicking the link, or you are seeking confrontation. I will post the intro to other interested users since you are falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA.

"is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today."

"Criticism of the Church of Scientology often brings to light the story of Xenu. The Church has tried to keep Xenu confidential"

If you accuse me of making personal attacks again I will seek out admin intervention. I hope you will edit constructively in the future. Republitarian 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on Xenu has nothing to do with this article. And yes, saying that an article should be deleted because of the original author's account name is a personal attack on that author. That is like saying that a random article on Naruto should be deleted because an editor who works on the article chose the name Orochimaru, who is a major villain in Naruto, as their account name. --TheFarix (Talk) 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of what TheFarix has stated above. Orsini 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's like saying "Sockpuppet on wheels" is an obvious vandal who should be immediately blocked. Since you continue to falsely accuse me of violating WP:NPA, I'm seeking outside opinion. Republitarian 15:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's one: you're wrong. You accused User:Lord Xenu of "malice": that is a failure to assume good faith. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to register great disapproval for Republitarian's behavior in this AfD process. I'm talking not just about the comments he/she has made here; I'm referring to this message he has posted on multiple article talk pages:

  "I'd appreciate it if Scientologist wikipedians would explain to TheFarix and Orsini that the page "Scientology Public Relations" is an obvious attack on Scientology by the vandal Lord Xenu.

  "See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Public Relations for the discussion. These users have both falsely accused me of making personal attacks when I pointed out that this user is a vandal. Thanks, Republitarian 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)" (emphasis added)

In my opinion, you have made a personal attack. You have attacked both the article and falsely referred to its author as a "vandal" on the sole basis of the editor's username. It appears I am not alone in my opinion, as TheFarix had the same complaint about it. Thanks, but I am well aware of where The Life and Times of Xenu The Space Alien fits in the secret texts of the scientology cult, so there is no need for a scientology cult member to explain what Xenu is to me. Lord Xenu is a regular contributor to the Usenet under the same alias, and you have failed to cite any evidence that Lord Xenu is a vandal, nor any evidence to support your claim that the article was written with malicious intent. Orsini 04:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is intensely inappropriate for Republitarian to be trying to summon other parties into this discussion, not to get their point of view, but rather purely to support his own. The fact that he is soliciting only Scientologists to join the discussion borders on sabotage of the AfD process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming the information presented can be appropriately sourced, Merge into the Scientology article. Leuko 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Strong keep and rewrite. I see a strong bias for deletion expressed towards the creator of this article only because of the editor's user name, hence the "strong keep". The article needs work, and my original reasons for voting to keep (as per Nlsanand) stand. Orsini 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Second opinion by this contributor, first is immediately above the relisting. GRBerry 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (and 'Merge any salvagable info into Church of Scientology or the OSA article)- there are too many Scientology splinter articles already: there is no reason this can't be appropriately covered on existing pages. BTfromLA 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge into one of the other 100 Scientology articles. Though the name of the user who created the article is irrelevant (this isn't an issue of vandalism or else it would have been speedy deleted, this is an AfD on the merits of the article) Vpoko 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite This could be a significant article were it to be de-POVized. That's by the nominators own admission. Becase "a well sourced informative articel could be written on the topic" it shouldn't be deleted....so long as it meets WP:V and WP:RS which is a huge problem in scientology articles. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but please do consider what I wrote carefully. "... I don't think those writing [an acceptable article on this subject] would even find this stub to be of much assistance." What good does it do to say "oh, a good article could exist on this subject, so we have to keep a poor one that won't lead to a good one"? Please, try this and tell me if you get a different result than I did: remove the vague and poorly sourced portions of the article. How much is left? Can you really see it as even a decent stub? If the focus were tighter -- if it were specifically about "TR-L", the Training Route that taught Guardian's Office members how to "outflow false data effectively", i.e., to lie, then there might be enough to make a usable stub. But for the whole topic of "Scientology public relations" ... I'm afraid that I have trouble not seeing it as "Hey, this is a perfectly good jigsaw puzzle piece... let's keep it around in case someone chooses to build a jigsaw puzzle it fits into." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Move anything useful into Scientology and related articles, but as far as I can see, all the facts are in other articles already. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no new information in it. Terryeo 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsalvageable. Deltabeignet 22:00, 27 August 2006 (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.