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. Withdrawn by nominator. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod was removed, so taking to AfD. Only sources given are self-referential. Notability not established in secondary sources. One section is an unsourced list of the "Scale", another is also unsourced, and has been tagged as such since May 2007. The only sources given are to primary source, self-referential sources, i.e. to Church of Scientology websites. If the subject of this article is discussed and analyzed in secondary sources enough so that it meets notability for this project - that is not asserted in the present state of this article. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, sources are most likely to be found in articles referencing topics like homosexuality in the church, and evaluating PTS and SP's. As with many other articles in this topic-space, there is some difficulty editing the articles and putting in any *non* CoS sources, because those sources are accused of being attacks/biased, and official CoS sources are being accused of being, well..... advocacy/bias. Anyways, here's a google for other editors, if they want to find sources and references that won't stir up more discord:[1] Ronabop (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, perusing your Google search it appears that the majority of those hits are only to other Church of Scientology websites and sources - and notability is not asserted with purely only self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - the tone scale is fantastically important in Scientology. Cirt, you appear to be mass-nominating for deletion articles in a subject area you have no knowledge of, making some of your nominations self-evidently ridiculous to those who know the area. It's entirely unclear how this serves interested readers - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Gerard (talk · contribs), you are possibly correct in some regard - but look at it from my perspective - compare the state of the article at present to Wikipedia:Notability - it really doesn't satisfy the criteria. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- From the article, one thinks this is something only covered by primary sources which are self-referential. This AfD process is meant to determine if that is indeed the case, and if so, the subject is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Further, we should be able to answer a simple question from reading the article - Is this subject matter analyzed/discussed enough in secondary sources to warrant notability on Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • This is a "don't be silly." It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In some sense, there's not going to be discussion of the topic independent of Scientology because nobody outside of practitioners of Scientology believes that the tone scale refers to anything objectively real. However, it is clearly a key part of Scientology and non-Scientology sources that describe Scientology doctrine and practices discuss the tone scale, e.g., Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, 1957, p. 280; Horton Davies, Christian Deviations: The Challenge of New Spiritual Movements, 1972, p. 108; Bent Corydon, L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, 1992, p. 111; Gareth Knight, Practical Guide to Qabalistic Symbolism, 2001, p. 130; Bryan R. Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society, 1992. It's appeared in fiction: Michael Moorcock, New Worlds: An Anthology, 2004, p. 21; John Leonard, Black Conceit, 1973, p. 78. Lippard (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Added a third party source. This is going to be a tricky thing to find many secondary sources on as Scientology has a tendency to sue for copyright violations at the drop of a hat. So this may come down for other reasons. Also rework. It's too much like an ad. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and I'd consider David Gerard to be an expert outside of the church (assuming that's really him). I know a lot about the church for an outsider, but he's been around the block on this a few times... Hobit (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And final comment. The Free Zone is much like the early protestant church: Similar to it's parent, but more-or-less at war with it. I'd call it independent if anyone wants to argue. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD nomination withdrawn by nominator - per above comments/sources by Lippard (talk · contribs). I'll get to the closing shortly. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 21 January 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.