| Revision as of 19:34, 25 November 2008 editJustallofthem (talk | contribs)1,455 edits c← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:35, 25 November 2008 edit undoCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits Keep.Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Scientology and sex}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Scientology and sex}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. ] (]) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. ] (]) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep.''' There are actually ]/] secondary sources given in the article itself already, including: | |||
| **Cooper, Paulette, ''The Scandal of Scientology'', Chapter 3, "Life and sex in the Womb" | |||
| **Malko, George, ''Scientology: The Now Religion'', Chapter 5 | |||
| **Robert Kaufman, ''Inside Scientology/Dianetics'', pt.1 | |||
| **See also , , | |||
| :This is certainly a subject that has received '']'', and should be kept and expanded upon with additional info from other secondary sources, and the info reliant solely upon primary sources should be pruned - but that is not AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. ''']''' (]) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 25 November 2008
Scientology and sex
AfDs for this article:- Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. Justallofthem (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There are actually WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources given in the article itself already, including:
- This is certainly a subject that has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and should be kept and expanded upon with additional info from other secondary sources, and the info reliant solely upon primary sources should be pruned - but that is not AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)