Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health
- 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 of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECTED. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article purports to be about the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health but a look at it shows that it isn't about the book but about the belief system first advanced in that work -- in other words, it's a POV fork of Dianetics, which ends in highly unencyclopedic rambling about supposed supression of the book ("Fascist Germany had its propaganda machines, Communist Russia had its propaganda machines and one could assume any tyranny invented by man would defend itself by any of the means it uses. Dianetics has attracted its share Controversy [sic] from 1938 onward... this book ... sent a message to all that might attempt to enslave mankind.") Such ranting would never have passed consensus at Dianetics and the author should not have created this POV fork to house it.
(Note: Please do not confuse this article with the article Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (the correct capitalization of the title) which is a well-written article about the book itself.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination, then redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to correctly-capitalized existing article. MCB 01:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect per MCB. I'd do it, but I think an admin should do it and close the AfD. Ifnord 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to be an admin to redirect pages. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with this deletion procedure, but I seek a petition. The Dianetics article was completely rewritten in my view from a negative point of view. The revision essentially ignored the Discussion process. It deleted facts from an article by a student represented as a scientific study for example. The facts presented in Discussion there for some time represent the negative tone of the article. Many editors familiar with Dianetics say it is unrecognisable. As a part of that rewrite my book article on Dianetics was replaced without discussion with a new version, and this deletion scheduled also without discussion. Anteaus Feldspar is a part of a group on Wike representing themselves as WP:SCN that has a membership where nearly everyone represents the negative on this issue. I think we need an unbiased Administrator to arbitrate a solution that is best for all. Spirit of Man 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The new version is a hasty put together without publisher, without ISBN, and make these erroneous statements: He then developed counseling (auditing) techniques for getting rid of engrams. This is still the technique used by Dianetics-trained counselors today. "auditing" is linked to an accounting defintion that nothing to do with the subject. The auditing techiques of that book are not the techniques since 1957 when training routines were developed to greatly improve the communications skill of auditors. Likewise the E-meter, session procedures and Golden Age of Tech training is the modern training for professional auditors. Book One auditing is completely workable and is still used in public areas but the statement here is hasty and not correct. Please look it over from an unbiased viewpoint. Spirit of Man 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect per above. N Shar 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Pintele Yid 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect per above. Arviragus 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy redirect Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to be bold, and just redirected it to Dianetics. Since it's the full title of that book, this is where it should be put. Anything sensible from the article can be taken from the history and merged. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (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.