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 Keep. the_undertow ^talk 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology In Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a POV fork and a content fork (WP:CFORK), created in the wake of the "Revesby Incident". Scientology is notoriously active in most countries of the world, but a separate "Scientology and..." article for every region on Earth is currently not justified. (Incidentally, it was created by a possible single-purpose account that started only a few days ago and created this article just 90 mins later, then proceeded to rapidly start linking it to the "See also" sections of other articles.) wikipediatrix 03:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis is clearly an attempt at removing a page that has some negative comments about a certain group that shall remain nameless (but they like Xenu). There is a great deal about Scientology in Australia that is not reflected elsewhere on Wikipedia, and a lot more information that can go on (including positive things they do). Wikipediatrix has been trying to remove the more negative aspects about Scientology on this page and this seems to be her latest tactic.

Apart from that her logic is flawed, it is common on wikipedia to make Country specific pages when the main pages on a religion are large (which is certainly the case with Scientology). Take for example Buddhism in Australia, Roman Catholic Church in Australia, Anglican Church of Canada, Islam in Australia, Lutheran Church , Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, Uniting Church in Australia, Presbyterian Church of Australia, Trijah 03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid inserting your personal opinions and wrong-headed assumptions about why I do what I do - I've created some of Wikipedia's most negative articles about Scientology, so your conspiracy theory that I'm out to whitewash your masterpiece is rather floppy. I pointedly avoided mentioning your name and also gave you benefit of the doubt by saying "possible" single purpose account. wikipediatrix 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making "negative comments" is not a new tactic for the OSA, so this reasoning does not really help you. The test is: were your comments productive? Digwuren 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I don't agree with the censorship charge, I do think that Trijah has a point that other religion-in-country articles are present and there seems to be enough information for the article's existance to be justified.(RookZERO 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Closely compare Scientology In Australia and Roman Catholic Church in Australia and see if you can figure out the obvious difference between the two. Remove the POV-pushing bits from both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, and you have no article left. wikipediatrix 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the negative aspects about an article and you only have the positive bits left. If you can't do that, remove the whole article Trijah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's clearly enough information here for an article and it's well sourced with 20 citations. Every editor has to start somewhere and there's no rule against a new editor working on a particular topic of interest to him or her. It's not a POV fork and wikipediatrix is I'm sure welcome to 'balance' the article in any way he wishes, perhaps by furnishing impartial third party sources for the existence of Xenu or Thetans or the Douglas DC-8 space planes would be a good start. I don't see anything in the article which is untrue. Nick mallory 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the definition of POV/content fork, as well as the criteria for deletion. Whether anything in the article is true or untrue has absolutely nothing to do with whether an article is a fork, nor is it an AfD criteria. Lastly, scientific proof of Xenu, etc. has nothing to do with this article, so I'm not sure why you brought all that up here. wikipediatrix 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fork of what, Wikipediatrix? Is there another article about Scientology in Australia? Is there a wikipedia article on the "Revesby Incident" you mention? My point is there is nothing 'contentious' which is not sourced in the article. There are far better sources for the existence of the murder case noted, for example, than for the 'facts' on which scientology itself is based. Where is the point of view in this article? If you want to balance it in some way with other sourced information then go ahead, it's not a reason to delete it. I'm not interested in your views about scientology, I just don't see concrete reasons to delete this article. I haven't made any edits to the article by the way, although I see you have been active in editing it previously. Your criteria for deletion seem to be that it was created by a new editor, which is irrelevent, that 'religions in a particular country' articles aren't needed - when there are any number of them and that it's a fork of articles which don't actually exist. You assert that this type of article is not 'justifiable' but provide no evidence to substantiate that point. Wikipedia is not paper. Nick mallory 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think parts of this article are salvageable, it just needs a very thorough cleanup, especially from a more neutral sounding POV. That does not warrant a deletion. And I disagree about it being a WP:CFORK Gorkymalorki 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The whole purpose of this article is to smear and slander. It is badly sourced - if at all, full of brainless trivia and a shame for any encyclopedia. Further there is no hope for it, as evident: The usual POV-pushers party with it. It's just an ugly Wikipedia policy violation, nothing more. Get rid of it. Misou 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your user page tells everyone that you're a "changes patroller in the Scientology article area", Misou, so I'm sure you've more expertise than me here but how is this article badly sourced exactly? Are the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian and the Australian not independent third party sources of note? What parts of it are untrue? You provide no evidence to back up your rather lurid accusations of 'smear' and 'slander' - I presume you mean libel. Which parts commit libel again? The stories which appeared in mass circulation newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian? As your user page states that you are a member of "Wikipedians against censorship" surely you should be in favour of this article's retention? Nick mallory 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think a religion with 2000 members deserves a section of its own. Also, the most notable feature about Scientology in Australia is I believe the fact that it is the first major country where the supreme court has decided it is a religion. This information is absent from the article though by encyclopedic reasoning it should be part of the head. Countries with a greater Scn membership have no such article. Religions with a greater membership in Australia have no such article. Such articles are not warranted. Scientology is not seriously comparable to the Catholic Church or Buddhism. The Catholic Church and Australia makes mention of the fact that Catholics are now the most represented Church, for instance. If the content is to be kept somewhere I suggest an article "Scientology in other countries" --Leocomix 07:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So add your improvements to the article, that's how Wikipedia works. There are plenty of articles about various religions in Australia, as noted above, and nothing to stop others being written. I also missed the memo which separated the world between the USA and 'other countries'.Nick mallory 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name. It's not a memo, it's part of the article creator's reasoning to explain why a specific article is warranted for Australia. The article's existence is not warranted in my opinion. Why improve it? Deleting it is improving the encyclopedia. --Leocomix 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree, it is a small religion, but there is enough of interest on the page I think to make it worthy of keeping. Also CoS, for a small religion, is very active, and has a number of high profile members including Kerry Packer....not that I think there should be a restriction on a page on a group of people just because there numbers are small anyway. CoS have also done some amazing things, for instance getting Deep Sleep Therapy banned. If anyone wants information on Scientology In Australia, this is the best neutral place to do, the CoS site is obviously pro Scientolgy, and the anti Scientology sites are too critical.Trijah 10:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Kerry Packer was an atheist having said after a near death experience that he ""been to the other side, and there was nothing there." [1] James Packer is the Scientologist. [2]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a major religions operations within Australia are cleary notable Twenty Years 11:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scientology in Australia has a distinct and notable history independently of the movement as a whole (i.e. attempts to ban it by various state governments in the 1970s, and some of their more bizarre behaviour in this decade as their numbers have declined to near-unsustainable levels in some states). Wikipedia articles should focus on material which is verifiable, not original research and which can be reliably sourced. Orderinchaos 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nobody has demonstrated what this is a POV fork of, and clearly there are multiple independent sources upon which to build an article discussing Scientology In Australia. It should be moved to Scientology in Australia though, per WP:MSH. Fits in the Widgets in Australia series (not all of which are religions - even though that's all that are listed above) mentioned by Trijah. Garrie 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theoretically it's a POV fork of Scientology controversy, since the article only exists to push tenuously connected and poorly sourced quasi-controversies. wikipediatrix 00:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of Scientology controversy?????...it's not a page about Scientology controversies. Its a page about Scientology in Australia. If there are controversies on this page, then they relate to Scientology in Australia. Simple.Trijah 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no reason this article should be deleted. The originator of the AfD simply does not like the article.--Fahrenheit451 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like it because it's a POV/content fork. And I also won't like it when someone inevitably creates Scientology in Sweden, Scientology in Finland, Scientology in Ecuador, Scientology in Tierra Del Fuego, Scientology in Buffalo, New York, and Scientology on the planet Coltice. wikipediatrix 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, you seem to be the biggest current POV pusher on Scientology-related articles. You are not the one to be casting stones at other editors on that issue.--Fahrenheit451 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can call it a content fork...there isn't even any other article on the "revesby incident". Apart from that, that is only one part of the article, it refers to a range of information about CoS, positive, neutral and negative. For some reason, you seem to continuously want to remove the subheadings that are negative about CoS, and this tactic of deleting the page seems to be some rather illogical way of dealing with it. Trijah 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to this drivel. wikipediatrix 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you answer the question, instead of personal insults. As someone already mentioned.....if its a POV fork, where is the other mention of the Revesby incident...that would make it a fork??? Trijah 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered that too. Pay attention. And you're the one doing the mudslinging, not me. wikipediatrix 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, your discussion with Trijah is very uncivil. I suggest you knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am in error, F451, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. I would welcome an RfC with you on this and several other matters. wikipediatrix 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in error, because you have been cautioned in multiple instances, but you fail to correct yourself. You are intentionally being uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: If you feel I am in error, F451, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. I would welcome an RfC with you on this and several other matters. There's really nothing else to say. wikipediatrix 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up by removing some POV material. However, it seems reasonable to keep articles on religions in particular countries if they are based on reliable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources" is the key phrase here. So far I'm seeing mostly primary sources (both from the Scientologists and the anti-Scientologists) and amateurish personal pages like "Why are they dead, Scientology?". The three main parts of the article that Trijah is championing are all of very tenuous connection to Scientology but serve to help make it look bad (like it needed any help!) in a sneaky-spin kind of way, so this article seems to convey nothing that couldn't be dealt with in Scientology controversy and Anderson Report. wikipediatrix 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The presented rationale does not merit deletion. Still, as pointed out by Gorkymalorki and others, the article is far from being in good shape, and needs serious overhaul. Digwuren 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is what WP:SPINOUT has to say: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." And that's precisely what's happened here, as this tail was clearly created to wag the dog, to highlight these alleged controversies. That these controversies were not originally on Scientology controversy (where they belong) makes no difference. wikipediatrix 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.