Talk:The Hole (Scientology)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because the stated explanation is complete nonsense - the subject of the article has received high-profile coverage in multiple reliable sources, including a Pullitzer Prize-winning newspaper and a book by a Pullitzer Prize-winning author. Furthermore, the article has already been reviewed and approved for running as a Did you know? article - see Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology). Finally, the article has so far had over 105,000 page views in only three days – without any disputes or controversies – and has been highly rated by dozens of readers (though unfortunately the page ratings aren't currently visible due to this speedy deletion request). I also note that the nominator of the speedy deletion has a severe conflict of interest due to being a self-acknowledged member of the Church of Scientology. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is the subject of numerous secondary sources, sufficient to meet GNG, and any NPOV issues can be handled without deletion. --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...it was, first of all, reviewed at Did you know nominations for approval to be a Main Page DYK. It was already vetted by a seasoned editor at DYK. One of the criteria for DYK, is they won't allow attack articles for consideration. The editor who nominated this for Speedy Deletion is by their own admission on their user page, on Wikipedia for the sole reason of defending Scientology. Talk about Conflict of Interest on this article! -— Maile (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have disclosed that I am editing for WP:NPOV on Scientology-related pages. I don't see why this is a problem. Did you do research on the editor that wrote this article? "Prioryman" has been topic-banned on Scientology and his credibility is questionable. See following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#ChrisO_restricted

"Prioryman" used to edit as "Chris O" and is not a reliable editor on Scientology subjects. He's been "de-sysopped' for repeatedly inappropriate behaviour." See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/gibraltar_pwns_wikipedia/print.html

Furthermore, all the "sources" used in this page go towards the same bias and agenda. There is no neutral source to fall back on. "The Hole" only "reportedly" exists. Why maintain a page when it's all based on allegations?NestleNW911 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)