Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScienTOMogy

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienTOMogy

Anyone can start a website. This one was notable, not for itself, but only because of the Church of Scientology's legal actions against it. There was some press coverage but it was only about the lawsuits, not the site itself. Steve Dufour 12:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first citation I clicked ([1]) carried an overview of the site and its contents. Besides, the site's involvement is its notability; your argument is like saying that Reginald Denny's article should deleted for not having information on his early life, where he grew up and stuff. This is a notable topic, and it appropriately covers the notable aspects of it. Dylan 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article said almost nothing about the site. Do you think that anyone would be talking about it if the Church of Scientology hadn't sued? BTW the information about the suits is probably already covered in other WP articles. Steve Dufour 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that anyone would be talking about it if the Church of Scientology hadn't sued? -- who cares what would have happened if things were different? The Church did get involved, and the Church did threaten to sue. I really don't understand what your objection is, if you admit in the nomination that it's a notable website. If it's notable and well-sourced, NPOV, etc. (it is), what's the problem? Dylan 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Church sued them is notable. The site itself is not notable. The car some celebrity was driving when arrested for DUI would not be a suitable subject for a WP article, even if it were mentioned in hundreds of news stories. Steve Dufour 18:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Well, I see your point now, but I still disagree. There's an obvious difference between the theoretical car you mentioned and this site. This site is the point of that lawsuit, the center of it, the impetus for it, while the car is just incidental to the arrest. In other words, the coverage of the car would definitely be "trivial," but this coverage is not. The coverage of ScienTOMOgy is substantive -- from reading the coverage, you can get a sense for the content of the website, its history, its author, and its point of view. Dylan 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficiently notable per WP:WEB#Criteria. There is an abundance of non-trivial coverage of this subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced, well-referenced and a range of coverage from outside sources; this appears to meet WP:WEB fine. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing mentioned there is: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I don't think the content of this site has been the subject of attention, rather its history of being sued -- which was over its domain name. Steve Dufour 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per the two Keeps from above before I even found out about this AFD on an article that recently passed a review as a WP:GA. This will make for an interesting {{Articlehistory}} box on the talk page... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am not saying that the article is not well written, just that its subject is not notable. Steve Dufour 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources establish notability, well formatted, in fact I see nothing wrong with it. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Check out this comment from AndroidCat (talk · contribs) Diff to the nominator of this current AFD, regarding an unsuccessful AFD of a Featured Article, the article Xenu, and here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu (second nomination) (The result was "Speedy Keep.") Just thought that was relevant. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Xenu still does not even attempt to answer basic questions, such as: Does anyone really believe in Xenu? It does give us lots of trivia however. :-) Steve Dufour 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To consistently AFD quality-rated articles, especially an article that has been rated as a WP:Featured Article on the project, seems like WP:POINT and a waste of everyone's time, as AndroidCat (talk · contribs) already complained about. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I thought that AfD's were about the notability of the subject matter, not the rating WP editors give the articles. Steve Dufour 02:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that most editors would realize that by the time an article like Xenu has been promoted as an Featured Article, "Kept", in its first AFD, and "Kept", in its Featured Article review - that filing AFDs at some point gets to be frivolous and a waste of time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Still, it should make an attempt to say something about its subject. Steve Dufour 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. If the editors of WP know everything and are never wrong maybe they should be doing something more important with their time and talents, Steve Dufour 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:WEB, and I would advise the nominator against splitting hairs. There is no WP:WEB1E (websites known only for one thing). Notability can come about for many reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the Church of Scientology, scientology.org, does not have its own article. Nor do 99.99% of websites. Why should this one? Steve Dufour 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it passes our notability standards. We can keep arguing in circles like this for hours if you're so inclined. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out WP:WEB#Criteria. To me it does not even come close to meeting the criteria stated there. This was just someone's personal website where he made fun of Tom Cruise. Steve Dufour 11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Has been the subject of sufficient media/other coverage. Sfacets 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Steve, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I think you might want to take a hint from the fact that seven other editors have uniformly disagreed with your assessment of this article's notability, all for the same reason. And as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage pointed out above, regardless of what your intentions actually are, continuing to nominate quality-rated articles for deletion smacks very strongly of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dylan 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article about this type of website about any other topic but Scientology would have been gone within a week. Maybe next time I will try writing an article instead of deleting one. :-) Steve Dufour 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject matter is notable, reliably sourced, and verifiable. Too bad Steve does not like it, but it complies with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.--Fahrenheit451 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable. Doczilla 08:59, 4 November 2007 (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.