Talk:Bridge Publications (Scientology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Scientology (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Original research tag[edit]

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)