Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Check Children

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 no consensus to delete. Anything else (expand, move, merge etc.) can be decided on the article's talk page. Petros471 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security Check Children

Does not establish notability. Scientology has enough of these "auditing procedures" to fill a wall of volumes. Are they all notable enough to receive their own articles? Crabapplecove 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone has the wherewithall (I certainly don't) to merge it into a catch-all article on Scientology audits/checks/what have you. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if scientology "Security Check" already exists in some form. (I can't find it). If it doesn't exist, delete and integrate this definition into another, e.g. Scientology beliefs and practices. --Tilman 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Religious practices towards children, such as infant baptism, seem reasonably notable to me. --FOo 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Security checking and turn into a more general article. This isn't just any "auditing procedure"; this is a controversial procedure which L. Ron Hubbard devised to be used on his own followers and tried to sell to various governments to be used for prying out disloyalty, interrogating dissidents, et cetera. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's inherently notable, considering Scientology's own notability. It's true Scientology does have a lot of auditing procedures, but some are more well-known and controversial than others. If there are any others that are as notable as this one, then yes, I do think they deserve their own articles. wikipediatrix 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one seems to be especially notable. If Wikipedia can have an article for every episode of Family Guy, I think we can have a seperate article for a very controversial topic. 4 August 2006. vpoko
Move and expand as per Antaeus Feldspar . --Svartalf 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Notability for a religious practice? Please. Is Extreme unction notable? I mean, it's only performed once per a person's life. Maybe this could be merged or moved or edited, but that's what ordinary editing is for, not AFD debates. WP:N is not policy. Mango juice^talk 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand per Antaeus Feldspar's arguments. --Davidstrauss 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am a Deletionist at heart, I truely feel, if we can Verify the sources, this is a Strong Keep. Besides, anything exposing Scientology is a good thing --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it probably is notable, all these Scientology articles suffer from not having reliable sources in that they are either self-published or openly hostile, which makes the articles inherently POV. - Yomangani ^talk 22:20, 11 August 2006 (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.