| Revision as of 20:15, 25 November 2008 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:29, 25 November 2008 edit undoJustallofthem (talk | contribs)1,455 edits →Scientology and sex: kkNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :*Cirt, as an exercise, how do "Malko, George, ''Scientology: The Now Religion'', Chapter 5" and "Robert Kaufman, ''Inside Scientology/Dianetics'', pt.1" relate to the subject of the article? --] (]) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | :*Cirt, as an exercise, how do "Malko, George, ''Scientology: The Now Religion'', Chapter 5" and "Robert Kaufman, ''Inside Scientology/Dianetics'', pt.1" relate to the subject of the article? --] (]) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::*Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. ''']''' (]) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | ::*Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. ''']''' (]) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::*Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --] (]) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:29, 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 AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt, as an exercise, how do "Malko, George, Scientology: The Now Religion, Chapter 5" and "Robert Kaufman, Inside Scientology/Dianetics, pt.1" relate to the subject of the article? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)