Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and science

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 merge to Scientology beliefs and practices. Content has been merged to Scientology beliefs and practices and it is necessary to retain and redirect this page to maintain attribution to those users involved in creating the content and to comply with Wikipedia's licensing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and science

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No doubt Scientology and science are associated, but this is an essay, and the scope of the article is unclear. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below): This is just an essay or personal reflection on Scientology. There are some sources, but the article is using them to build towards a synthetic point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Frustratingly enough, because content has been merged from this article to another, the outcome may need to be merge and redirect in order to preserve attribution. I would also support removing and revdeling the content from the other article so this page can be properly deleted, which I think would have been the right outcome in the first place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure at all that scientology and science are linked at all! This seems to be one of a whole series of articles "Scientology and ..." . Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as it pains me to say, but a NPOV requires me to do so, even if the article itself might not present NPOV, and it does need to be de-essayed, etc. However they do quote and reference SA and SA's Michael Shermer, a well recognised skeptic, so perhaps it is NPOV after all. Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Another option is to merge the text with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Science . The article, merged with that section, would enhance it and lend itself to greater neutrality.Greentrailblazer (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your input and consideration.Greentrailblazer (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:FRINGE/PS. Harsh (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Relevant portions of this article should be integrated into Scientology beliefs and practices#Science. This article does cite reliable sources, but the content is largely duplicative of the material that exists at Scientology beliefs and practices. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That might make it eligible for speedy under A10 then. I'm just leery of keeping this even in history when it's a personal essay. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the text has been moved over to Scientology beliefs and practices, I think we can ~~go ahead and delete this~~. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, the problem is that if text was incorporated into another article, this AfD may have to be closed as merge in order to preserve attribution. I guess it's something for the closing admin to look at and sort out, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: That's a good point. I'll go ahead and change my official position back to merge pursuant to the protocol for preserving attribution. Thanks for the heads up! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the text has already been merged into Scientology beliefs and practices, and I've removed some parts that are repetitive in the context of that article. I also support the merge. --Slashme (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FRINGE. I imagine an article on this topic could be created, but this ain't any of it. WP:TNT is the correct course of action. Blythwood (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scientology and its links to science has been adequately covered in the main article. Esquivalience ^t 23:47, 25 February 2016 (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.