Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 27 August 2010 (→Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages: k++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:23, 27 August 2010 by The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) (→Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages: k++)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages

Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed this article was created as a parallel to Zionist editing on Misplaced Pages (which is also up for AfD). It suffers from the same issues: WP:NOTNEWS and navel gazing. This information is already included in the articles Scientology controversies and Scientology versus the Internet; it's not notable enough to justify a separate article. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He must be an involved administrator with a WP:COI. We must immediately report him to WP:AN and WP:AE. Bawwww;! Bawwww;! -- Petri Krohn (talk)
  • Delete Keep due to reliable sources that say it's notable. But still... But it's much better to be bashed on WP than in person, less painful. :-)Borock (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The article is only a few days old. I doubt it will become a decent article but am sure there is a rule about giving a week before nominationg new articles for deletion. Perhaps consider making it an essay? Stupidstudent (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The point being made above is that this is, basically, one paragraph of content, and that we already have an existing article that covers this topic overall, including already having a paragraph of its own on this very facet of it, that can be expanded as needed. Furthermore, we don't need a project-space essay like this when we actually have the arbitration case itself to refer to directly, as well as the Signpost. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No the point I was making was to give a new article a chance before deleting it. Thanks to Cirt's hard work look now. You can't expect every article to become a featured article in less than a week. Stupidstudent (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Regardless, that remains the point that was made above, and the answer to the question that you asked. I'm amused that you are trying to tell me how article rescue and article development work, kiddo. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete this is clearly a non notable article and looks like it was created as a "reply" to another article called Zionist editing on Misplaced Pages. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you perhaps explain the discrepancy between your vote here, above, and your "Keep" vote on the Zionist editing on Misplaced Pages article? Both articles are sourced to similar media stories. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"Zionist editing on Misplaced Pages" is a notorious phenomenon stretching from CAMERAs campaign, Jewish Internet Defense League campaigns, to the Yesha councils and My Israels campaigns and most likely many other organizations. There is a lot of information about this. This article: "Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages" is literally a couple of sentences that can be merged with the Scientology main article. This article was also most likely only created as a "reply" to "Zionist editing on Misplaced Pages". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If we strip away your personal opinion in what is "notorious" or your speculation about what is "most likely", it seems the only policy-based arguments for the differing votes is that you seem to think there is not enough material or sources for this article (vs. the other) - so if this article is expanded with more material an sources, you'd change our vote to keep? HupHollandHup (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Its only connected to the Church of Scientology, so it can be merged to that. Its not notable enough to have a separate article. There are at least 4 pro-Israeli groups who have orchestrated campaigns at Misplaced Pages, all these should be merged to one article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Cirts expansion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I did a lot of editing to support Obama during the campaign, or at least to correct misinformation by the other side. I wasn't organized with anyone else though. Borock (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep - You're gooooooooood, Cirt. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete As flattered as I am to be mentioned in this article, this is really something that belongs on Wikinews. We should not be this self-referential. I don't see the encyclopedic content here. ⇒SWATJester 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That said, I think this would be excellent on Wikinews, and it is a very well written article. I just think that the subject itself is fatally flawed for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. ⇒SWATJester 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages is one of the most notable websites, so sometimes it definitely happens that notable stuff related to WP is covered in RS, and thus we have to be self-referential. While we shouldn't actively navel-gaze, we shouldn't either ignore when our navel is gazed by external sources. --Cyclopia 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Categories: