Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology Justice (old)

Scientology Justice

Completely OR and POV personal essay on ths non-notable subject. Only references given are to alleged and unverifiable obscure Scientology in-house publications. Crabapplecove 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep - looks OK to me. Though much in need of cleaning and better sourcing, the article does not seem to be a personal essay but rather a decent attempt at NPOV description of the system being described. The subject is notable in the sense that much of the controversy about Scientology involves its byzantine structure and bizarre system of punishments and rewards. An article on the internal justice system definitely fits into that interest pattern. zowie 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see lots of "straw man" POV wherein a premise is set up which the author then deconstructs with unsourced debunking. ("In theory..." followed by "However....") ("In principle..." followed by "In practice"...) ("There is a method of appeal..." followed by "but...") Aside from that, anyway, the basic concept of the article is non-notable even by Scientology standards: the term yields only 823 hits, only a fraction of which are valid (non-spam, non-blog) ones. Crabapplecove 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Incidentally, for verifying an article such as this, in-house Scientology publications are primary sources and therefore actually desirable, in my view. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I know they really exist? What stops anyone from making up their own "HCOPL" and sticking it into the text? As I understand it, you have to actually be a Scientologist to receive these things, they can't be obtained on amazon.com or in libraries or anywhere else. So, in effect, these sources are useless as valid references even if they are for-real. Crabapplecove 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You can get an entire compendium of all the OT levels and other various scientology texts off any P2P network in a few seconds quite easily. However, since they aren't public, they are not verifiable sources. Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The referenced sources are published and available to anyone without restriction. They can all be found in the Organizational Executive Course volumes.--Fahrenheit451 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Our comprehensiveness regarding Scientology is remarkable. Footnotes would be desirable, but it looks notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, its existence is acknowledged by the church and we can attribute any claims that are in doubt. Gazpacho 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I believe that the internal sources fail WP:RS#Self-published_sources in this case, and although that is not policy, failing this test leads to it failing WP:OR, which is. Providing other reputable sources may be difficult in this case but that is no reason to keep the article. As usual I'll change my mind if the article can be fixed. Yomangani 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The "justice" is an important aspect of scientology, it shows how the people get f*cked. --Tilman 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a very compelling reason to keep from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. Crabapplecove 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Scientology justice system is an important part of the subject and necessary for complete understanding of how the group operates. --Fahrenheit451 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above, but I agree it could use a cleanup. wikipediatrix 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the POV statements can be changed Lurker ^talk 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is a perfectly legitimate subject, and covers an important aspect of CoS functioning and policy.