Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology 8-8008

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. For detailed rationale, see the talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology 8-8008

Scientology 8-8008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I searched through many different archives and news aggregators trying to find any significant coverage or discussion of this book in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, all in vain. I could not find any book reviews of the work. "Scientology 8-8008" appears in a few books, but only as a brief mention, as part of a list of works by L. Ron Hubbard, or as an advertisement in a different Church of Scientology-affiliated publication. Zero hits for "Scientology 8-8008" in three different news archive sources. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sources satisfying WP:BK appear. Wikipedia is not a directory of Scientology materials, either positive or negative, and we have no brief to have articles on everything in the corpus. (I got my engrams cleared, I got my hair slicked down ....) --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. It's a hard case though. I couldn't find any independent reliable works about it myself, but still quite some websites (I wouldn't count as such works) mentioning it, so chances are literature about it does exist. And while the article doesn't indicate so, being written by Hubbard this book also might be part of Scientology's standard teaching literature, not sure if that should count for anything. --Minimaki (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and stubify. I sadly can't find any suitable sources for this, but I didn't search for long (I think the nom did more). I'd like to think that a book written by a notable person for a notable religion would also be notable. If there's a List of Scientology Books or something similar, merge bits to there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to Scientology, or delete entirely as independently nonnotable. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sounds like the B side of the Glenn Miller record "Pennsylvania 65000." Edison (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete its notablility isn't varified either within the article or by outside sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on WP:BK, criteria 5. "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." Common sense would tell me that L. Ron Hubbard would fit this definition, whichever side of the divide one is on. Perhaps YMMV. (Edited to correct my signature of a moment ago.) 98.215.48.213 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) — 98.215.48.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I dispute that this author is that notable to satisfy that point of WP:BK, however that would certainly apply to an author like John F. Kennedy or someone more notable. The book most definitely fails the first point in WP:BK: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. - which is not the case here. Certainly if the individuals' works were all to be deemed "notable" simply because he authored them, than each individual work would have received coverage of "multiple, non-trivial published works". No, I think in this case we must evaluate each work individually in order to assess notability and see if there is significant coverage in secondary sources, and in this case, there most certainly is not. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This book is a 'advanced study' book for an highly litigious organization, written by a very notable person. I would tend to think any book reviews of the work, would garner a quick lawsuit citing copyright infringments. This organization is so litigious that we, currently, cannot determine what works cite it. These facts create the Notability others may believe does not exist. The previous suggestion re: List of Scientology Books; this isnt required as it is, IMHO correctly, in Category:Books published by the Church of Scientology. ISBN 0884044297 should be in the Article though for WP:V Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are saying that because the orgonization in question is so quick to sue anyone who talks about it, the fact that no one is talking about it proves this fact and it is enough to establish notablility (even though it is published and distributed in mass...I don't think the church sued over a book review of "battlefield earth" or "dianetics")? also it is an advanced study book that is so important to the church, that rather than talk about it it only gets an advertisement on their pages, while Dianetics is given more respect. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "distributed in mass" ??? Find a copy of it in a library. You cant. We should be talking about it, but we cant, It is another 'secret' religious book that we are not competent (according to COS) to see, know what is in it or know what other works Cite it as a source. Thats part of its notability. Any book that has an ISBN, shouldn't we be able to obtain a copy of, but, for some reason, not this one. "battlefield earth" and "dianetics" preceded Hubbard's Scientology works and so were 'in the wild' before COS could control them. Secret "distributed in mass" books are notable for that reason alone. You should read about COS before making up your mind. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • um...I can buy a copy, I have the order form in front of me, its a secret doctrine that is avalible for $12.40+shiping (or 35.50 from Bridge Publishing...) so it is funny that you mention it isn't in a library, because that is another criteria for notablility. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to back up what you say above that this is a "advanced study book" ? Or anything else from your above comment, for that matter? Cirt (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously you have missed the point. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The point is that the book has not had any significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously you have missed the point. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • my Keep moved to Strong Keep Having explored WP:N (BOOK) I would postulate that this book satisfies the spirit of Nutshell point 4- "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" The link to the Publisher (read as WP:V) states the courses in which this is the book studied in more that 1 course. Also, I would mention that I believe L.Ron is so notable, that all his works are also inherently notable under Nutshell point 5- "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." This is a man who has, single handedly started, or been the source, of an entire "religion", this makes him historically significant beyong the events unfolding in the past few months. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have a secondary source, other than the publisher itself to back up this new assertion you are making that the book "is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" ? Cirt (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also refute the idea that L. Ron is so "historicaly significant"...he is significant in the religion he created...however his influence over the cource of history outside his religion is disputable. I am not disputing he is significant, however to qualify he would need to have significantly influenced history more than matters conserning just scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • also, I did read WP:V and the publisher falls under "promotional in nature" thus not a varifiable source...just a noteCoffeepusher (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This book is only notable within the cofs. As it stands here, it is merely an item on a list of Hubbard's works that someone wrote into an article. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the 2 above comments re: a possible Merge meant the existing list, Scientology bibliography - but any material merged (if a "Merge" is the way this AfD is closed, I still support "Delete") should be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, as opposed to primary self-referential sources affiliated with the publisher of the book. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (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.