I listed this article for AFD as it was basically original research using primary materials and non-reliable, non-notable sources with the only reliable secondary sourcing being related to tangential material. Initial !votes were keep but I had hopes that editors would begin to see my point. I was rather surprised when the debate was closed as SNOW by a non-admin after only 24-hours and a handful of !votes. Request that the AFD be relisted to allow for adequate discussion. Note that I requested this of the closing editor with no reply. Justallofthem (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support reopening this, as per Justallofthem's argument. I cannot see any WP:RS in the present article that would establish the notability of this topic as defined by the article title. This is not to say categorically that such sources do not exist. But I would like to see some topical sources brought forward by the article's defenders. Jayen46600:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen - The issue of sources used was raised at AfD1. AfD1 was closed as keep with promises of fixing the article's references. AfD2 was listed ten months later and same issue of sources used was raised again. The keep thrust again was promises to fix the article. As the AfD numbers increase, the promises to fix arguments carry less weight. Even if the outcome likely were keep, I think it important to have the full five days to gauge the communities view on where the topic stands in relation to promises to keep. In addition, looking at the article, few of the sources are independent of scientology. By not limiting content entrance into the article to independent third-party, published sources, the effect may be to make a make a mountain out of a molehill, particularly in the context of the scope of all material on scientology. Without a full five days discussion at AfD2, we'll never know if Wikipedia is making a big deal out of a minor issue. The use of dependent sources avoids dealing with the issue of whether anyone cares about the topic or sufficiently cares about the topic relative to the overall main topic of scientology. Instead, for the most part, the article now presents material for which only a Wikipedia editors can be said to care about. Straight from Hubbard into Wikipedia is not the path the content should take. It needs the intervening effect of third party decisions as to what is important and what is not. If this were AfD1, I would say OK to the snow close. However, we're now at AfD2 addressing the same problem of sources use and receiving the same promises as in AfD1. Cutting short the AfD opportunity for people to voice their displeasure on the lack of progress in the article is not the way to go. -- Suntag☼03:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
