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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power[edit]

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Then let's change the name of the article so it's about the Supreme Court case, and not the magazine article itself. I can think of thousands of well-known prize-winning magazine and newspaper articles, but I don't think we want Wikipedia to be flooded with articles devoted to each one of them individually. Heaven help us all if those floodgates are opened. wikipediatrix 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has its own article. Steve Dufour 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a magazine article. wikipediatrix 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pamphlet. BTW the "Elders of Zion" themselves, unlike "Xenu", do not have a WP article. Steve Dufour 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely why this article is itself so notable. I am most interested to hear what others think. My sentiment is still Keep, with current title, however, for reasons stated above. Smee 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Je suis choqué. Steve Dufour 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
t least when writing in English (smile) DGG 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, did you want to make an argument for deletion that has a basis in policy? The question that must be answered regarding this article is not how well it compares to an article on another magazine or journal piece. It is not whether this article is written to the same level of competence as another article. No, the question that must be answered is whether this article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I wasn't clear; I was replying to a proposed precedent of a clear justifiable one on an individual article. I intended to say rename, on the basis that the article was not N, but the controversy was. DGG 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - wikipediatrix, who nominated it for deletion, is not a Scientologist, in fact a critic of them. Steve Dufour 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COOPER: According to a 1991 "TIME" magazine article, quote -- and I'm quoting from the article, "Eleven top scientologists including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing, wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations."


A, is that true? And, B -- well, is that true? Because I mean, the critics of your organization say that you guys have a history of this, that whether this John Sweeney was a bad reporter or not, this is part of a pattern, that "TIME" magazine article certainly intimating that.
RINDER: Anderson, the history of the church is a long history of the church. And certainly, there are things that have happened. Those people that were involved in those activities back then, they were thrown out by the church. They were dismissed from the church. That's ancient history.
COOPER: That "TIME" magazine article, in 1991, which was a cover story, the writer of that article says, even in the course of his writing and his assignment, that he was -- he said illegally investigated by affiliates of the Church of Scientology. He was contacted numerous times by attorneys.
And, in fact, "TIME" magazine, Time Warner, the parent company, which also owns CNN, was sued. And the case was finally thrown out at multiple levels. I think it went up until 1997 or 1998.

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.
More