Talk:Bridge Publications (Scientology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bridge Publications (Scientology) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Original research tag

The entire article is one big unsourced, WP:OR violation. It should either be sourced meticulously, or cut down to a stub until it can be. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted if it is not notable. There is nothing in the article that most readers would find interesting. The picture isn't even of the subject of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable, it could very well be notable (Haven't done a search for sources, yet.) I just said it was unsourced in its present state, thus, the tag. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)