Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology filmography

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 Keep. (Note: (Since an editor here expressed intention to edit the article if outcome was keep) Editing of this article may be subject to restrictions set by ARBCOM, please read the talk page notice before doing so.) JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology filmography

Scientology filmography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No sources given. Notability not established in secondary sources. Prod was removed so brining to AfD. Prod was removed saying that external links section is enough for sourcing - but even the external links are all primary, self-referential sources. If this topic is discussed at length enough to show notability in secondary sources - it is not asserted in this article's present state. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps sources can be added, but I don't think that would make any difference. I can't figure out if the nominator is a Scientologist who is offended by the articles, or a person who doesn't particularly like the whole Scientology thing, but all the nominations today seem to have a common denominator. I don't see anything unencyclopedic about a discography or a filmography from an organization that publishes such things. I can understand the nomination on Dead file, rundowns, Fear (novel), Orientation (film) etc., but not this. Whether one is for or against Scientology, it's worth knowing what the publications/propaganda would be Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Who the nominator is is not relevant. Is the subject of this article discussed in secondary sources? That is certainly relevant, because in the present state of the article, that's not asserted. Not to mention that the entire article is basically unsourced and a big violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep. Nomination seems a bit scattered; is the issue the lack of sources or the lack of notability? The former is correctable, and the latter doesn't make sense - the "subject of this list" is Scientology, which is certainly notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue is both lack of sources and lack of notability. "Scientology" is notable, but that is not the subject of this article - the subject is "Scientology filmography" which is not notable, and has not been discussed or analyzed in multiple secondary sources, and does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep as with discography, it has encyclopedic worth and the sources should be easy to find. --neonwhite user page talk 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which criteria from are you drawing from when you say this article fits with Wikipedia:Notability ? Cirt (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Use common sense --neonwhite user page talk 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But can you make a case for notability using criteria from Wikipedia:Notability ? Cirt (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

from WP:N This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is a guideline ot a law. --neonwhite user page talk 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Can everything in this list be verified to independent sources? Cirt (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject-area expertise - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with coverage of the topic in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

• Keep per Zetawoof and Neon. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
    • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• No need to withdraw the nomination. I think it's likely that an administrator will probably close this one anyway under WP:SNOWBALL Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOWBALL should not apply after only four "keeps". Cirt (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not cite reliable, third-party sources for its assertions, and is therefore unverifiable and in violation of Wikipedia policy. Many of these uncited sections may also constitute original research. I hope that the closing administrator will take into account the strength of the arguments and not merely the number of "votes." *** Crotalus *** 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment i think the nature of the lists suggests it was sourced from a primary source the should be easy to find. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps so, but I've seen such claims before in AFDs that were never followed up on. It's one thing to say a source is available; quite another to actually cite it. Policy requires the latter. *** Crotalus *** 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Using common sense if also policy, deleting an article that has clear encyclopedic worth is counterproductive and does not improve wikipedia, it's against the whole point of article deletion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it encyclopedic to have an entire article that is a violation of WP:OR, WP:V, completely unsourced, and if sourced, only based on primary sources? Cirt (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Same a above. If the films are documented, then the article is sufficiently supported. DGG (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Response: -- At the moment, the entire article/list and everything in it is unsourced WP:OR at any rate, and has been for quite some time. As such, even if it is not deleted, any unsourced/WP:OR information in the article that is not cited should be removed. That would leave the article with - nothing. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 24 January 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.