Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbols of Scientology

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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Scientology

Due to the application of an interpretation of Wikipedia policy on trademark images, this article has been badly damaged and should be removed. An article that talks about the symbols of Scientology, while not being able to show any of them is useless. AndroidCat (talk) 09:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any material about specific symbols can be incorporated into the specific articles describing the organizations that those logos represent. (E.g. Sea Org logo to Sea Org article, Church of Spiritual Technology logo to Church of Spiritual Technology article, etc.) Cirt (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with AndroidCat and Cirt, article looks chopy due to image deletion, and no need for cetralised location for this information.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. This nomination seems motivated mostly by subjective frustrations with non-free image policies. I understand that frustration; and frankly, to the extent that it prevents an article such as this from showing the images it describes, I tend to agree it should change. This article, nevertheless, continues to describe and explain the several symbols in text. As such, it still has some value. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Scientology Symbolism. Notable subject which has enough content so that it doesn't need to be merged. Also, lack of free images shouldn't warrant a deletion.--TBC !?! 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and mildly interesting with some information. It would probably be better if written in paragraphs rather than as a table since, as was said, permission to use the images of the symbols was withheld. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. The verbal descriptions are lacking and there's just not enough to justify a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Scientology. Information on the symbols of Scientology would be best suited there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information would be too trivial for the general article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That is why I suggested above that bits of info on each individual logo be added to each relevant article, w/ examples given, above. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if articles already exist for what those symbols are used for then I agree as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do we have any comparable "Symbols of xyz" articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But there is a marked difference: the images used to depict the "symbols" in other articles, are typically all free-use images, most often from Wikimedia Commons, and not fair-use images. For example, Symbols of Lithuania, List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols, National symbols of Canada, there are more here. If you can find any that rely heavily on fair-use images, and/or any that rely heavily on primary, self-referential sources, I'd be interested to see them. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself based on a good idea, and implemented reasonably well, but it's too bad about the constant image deletions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a backwards way to organize this information. Follow fair use and write about the symbols in the articles on the sub-organizations. (Too bad that we can't rule these are public domain due to being millions of years old, predating all human history ....) --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it were just a gallery of images, the removal of the pictures would gut the article. However, there is an explanation narrative. I can understand that the images themselves aren't public domain, but I would think that you could simply post a link to somewhere else in the web that displays a particular symbol. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Smerdis of Tlön. Europe22 (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. Eithin (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Religious symbolism is a notable topic, of which we have many articles on Wikipedia. Lest I be WP:WAXed, I say this only to point out that there seems to be a general consensus that the symbols of various religious organizations (and Scientology is certainly a notable religious organization) is suitable for inclusion. The nominator's point that we can't even show the symbols is unfortunately true, but there is enough to be gained by discussing them in text to provide some understanding of the symbols utilized. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Someone might have the question: "What are some of the symbols used by Scientology?" Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These symbols are "religious trademarks" which is an oxymoron. Those symbols are not free, in distinction to the symbols used in all real religions. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scientology is a very notable religious organization and people will come looking for as much information as possible. The symbols are described fairly well and I'd like to see more work being put into this portion of the article. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Dizfreak and Steve. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (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.