Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incident (Scientology)

Incident (Scientology)

Incident (Scientology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. JustaHulk (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or scrap and re-write. As you said, a list of vague 'incidents' that I can gather no real information from. Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep although primary sources, They can be admited in this article since the writings of Hubbard are the only times these are referanced.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There is a difference between editing and deleting. I also do not see if there is anything incorect in it, at least at a first glance. AdrianCo (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Isn't the proper thing to do with an entry lacking citations to mark it as needing citations, rather than mark it for deletion? I see quite a few cites in place already... As for "...these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology..." -- they are part of Scientology, are they not? As a disinterested party who came across the Scientology page, and saw these "incidents" listed on the main page, I very much wanted to know more about them. They are relevant and should be kept, in a separate article linked from the main page, as they are. The fact they are in a separate, linked article should make it clear they are not central to Scientology. If you feel they are totally unimportant in Scientology, find a source that says so and cite it!, as I see has been done in a few places. If you wish to challenge more points as needing cites, please do. And re: "Article consists wholly of primary sources..." where else is one to find Hubbard's writings other than in Hubbard's writings?? Here is what Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:SELFPUB has to say on "Self-published sources": "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves..." [my emphasis] Primary sources are also OK to use under certain circumstances, there is not an absolute ban on them. If you wish to re-write the article using proper cites, and citing non-original sources -- if you can find them -- go ahead! It would certainly improve this article to have more cites. Apologies for the length of this post, but I felt a need to answer the various points raised. ACushen (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Any article which accurately summarizes Scientological beliefs will necessarily "cast them in a ridiculous light." <eleland/talkedits> 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - One comment from me for the above "keep" votes. They do not address the reason I AfD'd this. The article is original research based on primary materials and violates WP:NOR. I could expand on that but I think it is self-evident and needs no future exposition on my part. --JustaHulk (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment See ACushen and Wikipedia:SELFPUB. AdrianCo (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response - You ignore this line from Wikipedia:SELFPUB:

  "the article is not based primarily on such sources"

  So yes, the article violates that policy, too. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, reading a book isn't original research, it is citing a primary source. BJ^Talk 07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Article makes no blatent judgement about the incedents, nor does say anything about the incedents that isn't either a quote or a summery of what LRH stated. There dosn't appear to be any origonal reserch, only quotes from lectures.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sourcing is sufficient, and I agree with the various and myriad keep reasons above. Lawrence § t/e 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)