Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology Rundowns

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 Merge/Redirect to Rundown (Scientology). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientology Rundowns

Merge tag to Rundown (Scientology) has been in place since August 2007. This article in its present state heavily relies on self-referential sources from the Church of Scientology, and does not include any sources from reliable secondary sources. If these "Rundowns" are notable enough to have a list of them in such a manner on Wikipedia - it is not asserted in this article's present state. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a good deal of duplication with the article on Rundown, and I think the way to go is to try to get consensus on the merge, which does not require AfD. DGG (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even think there is a need for a "List of Scientology Rundowns" at the article on Rundown. This article should just be redirected there, but since no one is going to be looking for "List of Scientology Rundowns" this article should just be deleted. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with the merger proposal; the two are very similar as it is. Someone (who notices that the merge tag has been there for a while, for example) should just do it. Sounds more like a cleanup issue than one for deletion; the list is certainly well sourced, so it should not be deleted. If the merge becomes contentious, then maybe we can take another look to establish a firm consensus. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree, this afd is utterly unecessary. I recommend the nominator reads the guidelines on afds in future. --neonwhite user page talk 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Wikipedia:Notability for reading material? Specifically the General notability guideline -- "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- That seems highly relevant to this discussion, because this article does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - How about: you nominated Tone scale, revealing your utter ignorance of the topic area. Are you surprised people get annoyed when you nominate for deletion a swathe of articles on a topic you're clearly not merely ignorant of, but apparently proudly so? - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about providing something other than attacking my actions? What about an argument based in our standards of notability for this encyclopedia project? Are all these *****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) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"Rundowns" covered enough in secondary sources to warrant notability? Cirt (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or merge. Don't be silly. - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

A little common sense dictates that this is worth keeping. ignore all rules is policy whereby WP:N is merely a guidelines, guidelines are not rigid rules you are making the mistake of adhering to a guideline as if it were law. They are not. The primary purpose of an editor is to improve the site, it's not about points scoring or about 'policing', if an article has obvious worth than it should be kept. It's obvious you have not attempted any of the points you should have before nominating an AfD. --neonwhite user page talk 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Can everything in this list be verified to independent sources? Cirt (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it doesnt need independant sources. SPS would likely be ok here. --neonwhite user page talk 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be verifiable, and not draw POV from primary sources, if primary sources are the only sources for an article, that article must also have sources independent of the primary source, namely other than Church of Scientology sources. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. However, with this one I think the best idea would be to delete or merge. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The reasons given for this AfD are captious.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rundown (Scientology). I think that the very large number of articles on this fringe cult constitutes undue weight, and merging is a good start to trimming them down. *** Crotalus *** 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]