Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:03, 14 February 2022

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 delete. Close one, but the lack of rebuttal to Jayen666 concern about reliable sources makes it a delete. I checked the two sources itself, the sources doesn't talk about the drill in passing mention, and there doesn't seem to be any other sources for the article. Without enough reliable sources for the topic, a article can't not be created or merged. Secret 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Patter drill

Patter drill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Absolutely non-notable content fork. I cannot find anything on "patter drill" in Google Scholar or Google Books and it seems that the only secondary mention is incidental, i.e. some Scientologist got in a fight with the Church over "patter drills" and was excommunicated. He could as well have been thrown out over a fight about the color the walls were being painted. The newspaper article is simply about the fate of some ex-communicated Scientologists, not about "patter drills". Whatever can be salvaged from this belongs in Scientology beliefs and practices Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The AfD nominator neglected to notify the article creator of this discussion. I have taken the initiative and placed a notice on the talk page for Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think F451 has, in the past, asked that I not post on his talk page. I posted this AFD on the Scientology project page where anyone interested in the subject can find it. I see below that F451 did not miss an opportunity to insult me. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Thanks for doing that Cirt. Wonder if that was a Fair Game action.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Scientology beliefs and practices. And also merge some material into Suppressive Person, as secondary sources focus more on that aspect in particular. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the nominator endulges in wild speculations about the motives of the subject in the article cited. Nowhere is "excommunicated" stated in the article, yet the nominator, Justanother, states that the subject was excommunicated. It appears that the subject in the article disputed that the said "patter drills" were issued by L. Ron Hubbard and there was retaliation against the subject by the scientology corporation. I think this article is somewhat notable and properly cited. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, F451, shouldn't you proclaim your conflict of interest in this article under the Disclosure term of the COFS arbitration? Don't you have some "allegiance" here (to put it mildly)? Either declare your COI or refactor your !vote to a comment. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• My vote stands. What allegiance are you falsely implying I have? What is your conflict of interest?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a COI, my only interest regarding Scientology here is a fair and balanced representation. Do you really want me to spell out yours? I can if you want me to (start here). I would rather not and would rather just leave it up to your judgment as to whether you have a COI in this specific instance. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Justanother, I begin to wonder if you have a COI here. Are you practicing Fair Game?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, I asked you to recluse yourself. You declined. I am willing to bow out on the topic as it is nonproductive and, in my view, bad manners, to continue. You however, don't seem to want to let it die. Tell you what, let it die now, you can even remove this thread if you are at all uncomfortable with it. I will not respond further on the topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• In specific response to your issue, F451, you know as well as I do that "excommunicated" is a good non-jargon substitute for the term "declared a suppressive person" (see). I did not want to use Scientology jargon in my nomination if it could be avoided. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• No citation listed. I think that you are attempting to mislead, Justanother. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The present sourcing is most odd indeed. The first source cited states that a Scientologist "repeatedly challenged the validity of a "patter drill" in which he was instructed to read passages of a course to a wall. Smith insisted the drill was not based on Hubbard teachings." Our article turns this into: "Patter drills are a drilling method used in courses in the Church of Scientology which were added to many Church courses in mid-1996, by David Miscavige as part of the Golden Age of Tech development. In order to perform patter drills, students are instructed to read sections of course material to a wall." How de wo know this? It's just not in the source. The source describes an occurrence where "a patter drill" (i.e. one particular occurrence of an otherwise undefined practice) involved someone reading something to a wall. It's quite a leap of confidence to go from there to describing patter drills in the way the article does. The section on the "History of patter drills" is entirely unsourced. "Church reaction to objector" is not about patter drills at all. To sum up, there is at present no source that establishes the notability of "patter drills" or, indeed, explains what they are, when they are applied, to whom they are applied, and what forms they can take. I am willing to change my opinion if someone finds a reliable source addressing this topic in detail. Jayen466 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of the title, this violates BLP policy, which is legitimately used to keep out material like this. The non BLP material is unsourced. That does not mean a useful article could not be written, but the first step is to remove this one. DGG (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• What part is in violation of BLP? That would be easy enough to correct.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect per Cirt. DigitalC (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge I can't see how this is BLP, and the nominator seems to have taken this as a chance to level a personal attack against the article creator. Article is short, but can be improved IMHO, but at the least content should be merged into other articles. As for User:Fahrenheit451, I don't know of any COI, but User:Justallofthem has been sanctioned in the past as having a COI previously in this Subject. Let's keep the accusations out of this article debate. This is about the article, not the editors. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Cautioning a user with a COI that they have a COI is not "a personal attack against the article creator". The fact that you do not know of the COI bears little on whether he has one that he and I are well aware of. I asked him to recuse and he declined. I am willing to leave it at that for now. Is there any particular reason that you neglected to mention his more obvious attacks on me, repeatedly asking if I was practicing Fair Game, an offensive term to a Scientologist? You might not know it is offensive but I clearly indicate above that I consider it an insult. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Justanother, you accused me of having a COI, rather than ask me. Your approach was adversarial. Because of your adversarial approach and allegiance to the cofs, I questioned if you were practicing Fair Game. Unfortunately, you took that personally as an insult and it was not. It was a question. You answered to the negative and I dropped the matter. Now, you bring it up again.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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.