Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cause of Suppression

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 delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cause of Suppression[edit]

As the article currently stands, it only links to two other self-referential primary sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology. I checked to see if I could find any mention of this work in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. I could find zero mention of this work in any archived news sources, after searching in 2 different databases. I could only find a brief mention in a "works cited" section in one book, I Thought I Was the Crazy One: 201 Ways to Identify and Deal with Toxic People, by Ruthie O. Grant. This is not enough to assert notability, and certainly not enough to have any semblance of an article with discussion in secondary sources. It should be deleted as non-notable, with no significant discussion or coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I also looked in a Book Review index in InfoTrac, and could not find any mention of this book there either. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there was even some discussion raised as to whether this was a "book" at all, or just some "booklet" put out by the organization. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, this seems to be a non-notable work. If there is important information to be preserved, it can find a home in the Suppressive Person article. --Good Damon 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be just a chapter/sub-section of the Scientology Handbook distributed as a booklet. Not notable. AndroidCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It may also qualify for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criteria 11.(content is solely based on dissemination material(the booklet itself) from the organisation) -- Stan_talk 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with you that this article could be a candidate for {{db-spam}}, and if someone else wants to add that tag to this article that's fine by me. But I started an AfD instead of going that route because a WP:PROD had been placed and removed on this article previously. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made a promise not to edit or vote on deletion of any Project Scientology articles. However the people above make good points. There are about 200-300 other Scientology articles on WP that should also be deleted. There are only a few thousand active Scientologists in the world, plus a few thousand more people whose main interest in life is going on the Internet to criticize/make fun of them. So the amount of coverage WP gives the topic is way out of line for its real world importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It appears to be just another book that contains scientology doctirine and offers no explination on what its significance to...anything is outside of the church. on a side note, how many articles do we have that are just "books by Hubbard"? I can see adding his significant works like Dianetics or the OT doctirine but not books like this. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:11, 23 February 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.