Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu

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 of the debate was Keep. 22 - 1 in one day. Many speedies. Marskell 10:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Xenu

The fundamental source of this article is a stolen unpublished document from the Church of Scientology, it is not reliable verifiable to the true Church document regardless of arguments over it by either side. AI 03:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Unverifiable --AI 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Irrespective of the source, it is notable for being popularly associated with the CoS, and widely cited by CoS opponents; problems with verifiability can and should be addressed in the article. -- BD2412 talk 03:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't care about your POV. Arnie Lerma was tried and convicted of copyright violation because the document is unpublished. The actual church document is not reliable verifiable except through conmen such as Arnie and some other "associates" of his. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Can it be both a copyright violation of a CoS document, and unreliable (false, forged) at the same time? -- DavidConrad 05:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Your confusion may be based on the propaganda of Arnie Lerma or Karin Spaink or David Touretzky. The church won in it's case against Arnie Lerma then sealed the documents. Thus they cannot be reliable verified to the true source. --AI 06:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a former featured article! Please raise any specific concerns about verifiability on the talk page. -- Wmahan. 04:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter if it was a featured article and there's nothing to discuss. The church's documents are legally sealed because they were stolen unpublished documents. There is no way to reliably verify it. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important Scientology concept. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the concept cannot be verified because it is unpublished and kept secret by the church. It is unverifiable which is the basis for this AfD. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:AI declares on his/her own user page that s/he is engaging in disruption. --FOo 04:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Fubar obfusco is a biased critic of Scientology and has just violated WP:NPA by making a personal remark which is irrelevant to the article being nominated for deletion. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nomination made in bad faith by a contributor who has announced his/her intention to "Destroy Wikipedia". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Antaeus Feldspar is a biased critic of Scientology and has just violated WP:NPA by making a personal remark which is irrelevant to the article being nominated for deletion. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of the primary source, I do not see why this page should be deleted. If the concept itself cannot be verified, there are still many sources available that show that this is a controversial or debated idea, just like any other alternative, speculative and disputed theory or conspiracy theory. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What don't you understand about unverifiable? --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for all above obvious reasons. Postdlf 05:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually obvious reasons would indicate it should be deleted. --AI 06:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and refer nominator to WP:RFAR. Ambi 05:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice Try, but RfAr has been referred to this as evidence of my claims. I really don't care the outcome of the AfD, its more for Wikipedia's own sake in retaining it's credibility and other important issues which Wikipedia should not ignore. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, nominator contradicts himself! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Voter makes personal comment in violation of WP:NPA instead of commenting on the issue as I stated above. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I believe that the nomination was made in bad faith by a user who doesn't appreciate that not only is the publication irrelevant, but that their participation, having proclaimed that they have "turned on Wikipedia", is inappropriate. Ral315 05:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I could care less what you think about my "faith." This AfD is to give Wikipedia a last chance to prove IT is acting in good faith. Note the Voter's violation of WP:NPA by making personal comments instead of considering my initial statement above. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me also note that the nominator is undergoing an RFArb right now, that, when passed, will ban him temporarily, because of a legal dispute with Wikipedia, and would be banned indefinitely from Church of Scientology-related articles. Ral315 05:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no legal dispute. The arbitrator User:Fred Bauer has demonstrated his incompetence once too many times. He claims I have a legal dispute, but that is based on his misinterpretation of my statements and possibly his confusion thinking that I am Barbara Schwarz. I have asked him to be removed from the RfA. Also the filer of the RfA is MarkSweep who has lied in his opening statements against me and is defending David S. Touretzky. Interesting to note is that DST is one who has been spreading the Xenu documents around the world in defiance of the court's ruling against Lerma..--AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as spurious, bad faith nomination. Hell, it's even been cited as a source article! Agree with Ambi that this should go before RFAR. - Lucky 6.9 05:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: the Voter's violation of WP:NPA rather than considering that this article is based on an unverifiable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AI (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 September 2005
  • Keep - Nunh-huh 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear case for a Speedy Keep if any admins are passing by. Capitalistroadster 06:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: The the last few voters are probably sock puppets. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Why do you say that? Who are they sockpuppets of? I can see no evidence for this in their edit histories. --Apyule 07:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Other than the fact that they've never been photographed together, I don't see any reason to accuse Lucky 6.9, Capitalistroadster and Nunh-huh of being sockpuppets, AI. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep just like with Jesus. I think that this is a bad faith nomination. I would support putting this to RFAR. --Apyule 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zzyzx11 --Irmgard 07:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep lots of reliable independent verification for this presented in the article, regardless of the legality of the Church's official documents. Ziggurat 07:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep no brainer. --Sgkay 07:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep we need this nonsense to be exposed --Crgn 07:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Xenu is one of the main aspects of the CoS, a notable church. Zach (Sound Off) 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This VfD is nothing more than a troll, as User:AI has admitted that his only reasons for participating in Wikipedia at all are to disrupt it. Examples: here, here, and especially here.--Modemac 09:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: bad faith nomination coupled with ad hominem attacks on respondents AlexTiefling 09:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep -- good article Mgormez 10:13, 14 September 2005 (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.