Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Neil ム 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idenics

Idenics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • DELETENot notable. Only 1,410 Google hits, mostly from message boards or ads from practitioners. If there is a concern about losing this data, the article may be merged with Freezone. S. M. Sullivan 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment S.M. Sullivan has a pro-cofs POV. The cofs considers Idenics to be a suppressive group.--Fahrenheit451 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fixed malformed nom previously attached to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Smith (predator). cab 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not really sure by what standard this isn't notable. By a quick glance it seems to have extremely significant coverage from reliable sources - could you be a bit more specific?--danielfolsom 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment all of the references cited in the article are self-published. There are no independent reliable third party sources (non-Freezone non-Idenics associated newspapers, books, magazine articles) as references. The articles and references are basically Idenics ads. S. M. Sullivan 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentNot true S.M. Sullivan. Other than the Idenics web site itself, the other sites are definitely Not advertisements. I guess you really want to get rid of this article.--Fahrenheit451 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ahh my mistake - for some reason I can't actually recall I thought one of those wasn't self published--danielfolsom 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:RS--danielfolsom 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable. No evidence any sources are not reliable.--Fahrenheit451 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per above. Fourth-rate Scientology-wannabe spin-off. This article and its "sources" mostly regurgitate what Idenics says about Idenics. It actually garners only 190 unique Ghits, and most of those are template-spam, personal pages, message board posts, junk, and unrelated entities that have the same name. Hopelessly non-notable . wikipediatrix 20:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipediatrix is advertising her ignorance of the subject as it is very different than scientology. It is a practice and does not purport being a religion. Wikipediatrix should keep her ignorance to herself and deal in facts.--Fahrenheit451 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepThe subject is noteable and is definitely not a Scientology-wannabe. --Identitygoldz 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: the above post is the very first edit User:Identitygoldz has made. wikipediatrix 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I've done idenics, and it's very useful. I believe it's an up and coming thing. I'm assuming scientologists are trying to suppress this, although I know little about the religion, but know something about it's practices in silencing its competition. The guy who calls it "Fourth-rate Scientology-wannabe spin-off" is clueless about what he's talking about, and is too ignorant to be allowed to comment on this subject. He's probably from the "church" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.221.56 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete As per nom.HubcapD 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment HubcapD has a pro-cofs POV. The cofs considers Idenics to be a suppressive group.--Fahrenheit451 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I could care less about the Scn connection. It just ain't notable. Someone thunk up sumptin does not equal notability. Sorry. --Justanother 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Justanother has a pro-cofs POV. The cofs considers Idenics to be a suppressive group.--Fahrenheit451 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I could care less about who or what the CoS (CofS) thinks is "suppressive". Although I have found that sometimes those tagged such rightly deserve it - they are sometimes manipulative, selfish, and abusive people . . . or worse. Sometimes they are not. --Justanother 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepI found Idenics to be simple, direct and powerful and I got great results. I think more people need the opportunity to become aware of this.--Blueyes1125 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Note: the above post is the very first edit User:Blueyes1125 has made. wikipediatrix 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. What cofs considers is irrelevant. At best it can be merged with Freezone or redirected to it. While it branched out from Hubbard way earlier than what is considered the founding period of Freezone (the 80s), groups have been branching out from Dn/Scn since 1950. --Leocomix 10:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Leocomix has a pro-cofs POV. Leocomix has also demonstrated that he is very misinformed about Idenics as it did not come into existence until 1987. Leocomix's comment of notability is based on misinformation he has obtained elsewhere.--Fahrenheit451 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • F451, what is with this evaluative BS commentary on other editors. --Justanother 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And yet there are no Federal racketeering charges being brought against the CoS, even though their opponents have been stating for over 25 years that it's coming "any day now". How is it that you think you know more than the U.S. Government? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? (More importantly, what do all these red herrings you keep dragging in have to do with whether the Idenics article passes WP:CORP?) wikipediatrix 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The crime and the prosecution are two different things entirely. I think you are dragging red herrings here in support of a spurious contention of "not notable". --Fahrenheit451 02:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Idenics is a system not related to Church of Scientology copyrights. I have held important exec positions in the Church for many years, so i can say this. however, the Church wishs to stamp out anything like a self-help group that they do not control. I find it very odd that a Church hides behind commercial law and will do this. readers should know about Idenics whether the Church likes it or not. Are we book burners? no. George Rasmussen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.195.15 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - relevant and respectable Freezone group, no need to delete this. Google counts are not the world - David Gerard 10:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree, relevant and respectable Freezone group, no need to delete this. ThomasPaine123 11:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentThe subject is relevant to hundreds if not thousands of individuals using the subject. I did not know Wikipedia made decisions on if a subject was important to everyone. Information needs to be kept correct and policies established for that makes sense. If a subject is correct but unimportant why delete it. It simple will be used by only those few that are interested. Sounds a bit like book burning to me because someone wants only their version of the way things should be to be available. --User:ThomasPaine123 21:25 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin With a couple of notable exceptions, the keep votes are very much of a WP:SPA nature. Much more than I have seen on other Scn-related AfDs. Interesting. --Justanother 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to the closing admin This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. So the Office of Special Affairs is out to delete this article, eh? And all editors who disagree with you are part of the conspiracy, eh? And you don't need to assume good faith because of this, eh? Paranoia strikes deep. wikipediatrix 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not state that, you did to misdirect from what I did state. You are speaking for yourself Wikipediatrix.--Fahrenheit451 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So you didn't just say that "This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job"? And you didn't just say "The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated"?? And you didn't just say "There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them"? wikipediatrix 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I repeat my entire comment in context, which you destroy in your "comment":Comment to the closing admin This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:HARASS:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. [emphasis added]

--Justanother 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, harassment is certainly one aspect of the practice of Fair Game (Scientology). The practice is used routinely against those folks who object to the Human Rights violations of the cofs. We are seeing it here.--Fahrenheit451 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI think OSA is very good at provoking fire fights as shown in USA courts of law. Whether this is actually the case here or not is not the important point. The original problem is earlier. I am very glad the administrators are not treating this as a vote. It is a very grave error for Wikipedia to start deleting articles on the basis of use or possible use. It is the basis of freedom of communication that if something is said in good faith and truthfully, that it is then allowed to be heard. I believe that Wikipedia exists because of this principle and for Wikipedia to establish policy violating it would be suicidal to Wikipedia's standards. --User:ThomasPaine123 4:01 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth does any of this OSA junk have to do with whether the Idenics article passes WP:CORP?

wikipediatrix 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OSA being a hidden setup group or not, is NOT important. Wikipedia deleting an article because it does not get used is the point. Someone may write about arcane information on Hamiltonian Operators in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe only ten people can understand it. It should be left in. Number of users looking at it should not be the criteria. There is no shortage of cheap storage space. User:ThomasPaine123 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant promo piece about the miracle testimonies of people "who were unable to handle their issues in years of previous therapies". The sources are ridiculous, try this one. Delete per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment That can be edited out, Bishonen.--Fahrenheit451 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with respected Wikipedia user David Gerard (talk · contribs), and his comment above. Shinealight2007 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
Gerard gave no guideline/policy-based answer, thus simply saying "I agree with him" is unhelpful. What parts of WP:CORP and WP:RS do you cite to support your decision? wikipediatrix 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like some good referencing is provided. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is a good editor and respected on Wikipedia, and I trust and defer to his judgement. If he says keep, and the article can be worked on, then I think we should keep it and give it a chance. Shinealight2007 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep Though it is light on information for my taste, I was able to find a reference not already included so perhaps more might be available with a more detailed search. Anynobody 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the sources for the first sentence are reliable (WP:RS). The rest of the page is POV drivel. Even if this does pass WP:CORP, it fails WP:NPOV. --Alksub 07:41, 31 August 2007 (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.