| Revision as of 21:19, 6 February 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,474 editsm Signing comment by Beach drifter - "→Incident (Scientology): "← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:51, 7 February 2008 edit undoBeach drifter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,035 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. ] and ]. The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. ] and ]. The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' or scrap and re-write. As you said, a list of vague 'incidents' that I can gather no real information from. |
*'''Delete''' or scrap and re-write. As you said, a list of vague 'incidents' that I can gather no real information from. ] (]) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:51, 7 February 2008
Incident (Scientology)
- Incident (Scientology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. JustaHulk (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or scrap and re-write. As you said, a list of vague 'incidents' that I can gather no real information from. Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)