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 no consensus. LFaraone 01:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Deletion discussions on redirects to List of Scientologists:

(i) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientologist celebrities

(ii)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable converts to Scientology

An article on List of Jews or List of Catholics is badly conceived, but this is far worse. Why? Because it is serving to brand people as "in" or "out" of a religious category that has been highly flexible (lots of people have dabbled with this stuff for a few years and left, but this wants to brand them for life), in many cases with dubious and/or out of date sourcing, flexiblity on behalf of individual wikipedia editors as to what constitutes as "scientlogist" etc... It is a massive BLP problem, not least because of both the general public dissaproval of scientology but more so because it's placing people into binary categories that they may not want to belong to. If there is high quality sourcing that someone is an active, self-identifying member of this or any church, that can be dealt with in their bio. But another coatrack with even fewer neutral eyes on it like this list? Shameful really. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sourcing is dreadful in places. Per WP:BLPCAT, we need (recent) self-identification, and relevance to the person's notability, to include someone in this list; instead we have entries like [1][2][3] which mention in passing that someone is a Scientologist (according to that source). In the past we had to remove several entries, like Gloria Gaynor, Chaka Khan, Jada Pinkett-Smith etc., which were plain wrong, or where people (like Christopher Reeve) had done some type of course but didn't stay on. --JN466 16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just flypaper for BLP abuses. I'm shocked that this stuff is so tolerated here, but i shouldn't be, and it gets to the crux of the base level incompetence here. If some newspaper in 2000 writes that "so-and-so" is a scientologist, the wikipedia dogma is that not only does that make them a scientologist, but that it has to be repeated in as many places as possible.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom then. --JN466 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately we have a "every Scientologist must be documented" ethos among certain editors. But the nomination is correct. We have a category, all this does it label people, without nuance, on the basis that a source speaks of them being involved with Scoentology at one point in their life. BLP minefield.--Scott Mac 17:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and encyclopedic information that indexes Wikipedia articles on people with a significant biographical fact in common. Because this is a list, not a category, the claim that someone was a Scientologist at some point in their life can be directly cited and annotated to explain their inclusion. If the cites are not reliable, or the explanation is not persuasive that this is a substantive and verifiable fact about them, then remove the entry. I'm not remotely persuaded by the claim that this list should be deleted because it is hard to police and verify. If an entry is uncited or their inclusion unexplained, remove it. But certainly if the subject's Scientology is worth mentioning in their article and can be verified there, then it can't simultaneously be claimed that a list of people whose articles have such verified facts stated therein is somehow unverifiable or unencyclopedic. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLPCAT requires self-identification, and relevance to notability, for lists as well as categories. --JN466 17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true. BLPCAT requires "relevance to "to their notable activities or public life". (emphasis added) If you can establish that there are no qualifying notable individuals for whom that can be verified, I will change my mind and support deletion of this list, but I do not see that is the case. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists and categories have specific standards that apply when it comes to religious affiliation - see WP:BLPCAT. The general principles of verification you describe are less exhaustive than the standards we apply to lists and categories.Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that someone was a "Scientologist at some point in their life" (what, even for a year in their teens?) does not justify us labelling them as currently being a Scientologist.--Scott Mac 17:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the vast majority of these people, even assuming they are or were scientologists, it's completely incidental to what makes them notable. It's a coatrack to label people, many of whose involvement with this and other faiths is transient and undeterminable. For most of them, it's probably not worth a mention in their biographical articles but at minimum is much easier to police in them. Why should wikipedia be in the business of letting random anonymous editos label people as this or that with weak and transient sources on one of the most wildly trafficked websites?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (I'm going to assume all of these comments are replies to mine, even though they are indented as if they are replying to each other in succession). Religion is a pretty significant biographical fact. It's not inherently negative or positive, even though some may view a particular religion negatively or positively; it just is. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant to their notability because we don't limit verifiable information (or even verifiable negative information) on people to just what they are notable for, either within a subject's article or in other articles or in lists. Nor do we do so in categories, as a matter of fact, given the pervasiveness of religion categories that are not in any way tied to the subject's notability, including Category:Scientologists...you can claim otherwise once you've demonstrated a consensus to delete each of those.

        Nor do I think the fact that someone could leave a religion is relevant to the issue of whether it should be stated, in a list, or elsewhere, that they were once part of it. That does not counsel deletion of the list, just that we should annotate that they left it (it's not a list of currently practicing Scientologists). To the extent BLPCAT says otherwise, I suspect it is a recent edit that has not yet stood the test of time to really evaluate its consequences, as we are doing here. And so apart from arguments that actually expressly deal with editing practicalities, I don't give the invocation of that acronym any credence beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE; add or subtract those six letters and no one's arguments are any stronger or weaker in my view.

        There is a reason why categories have historically been more restrictive: they appear as statements of fact in the abstract, they appear without annotations, and they cannot be directly cited to show . None of that applies to statements of facts within lists and so there is no compelling reason to pretend otherwise. The policy concerns expressed as WP:BLP only require us to remove uncited negative facts from content about living people, not to hamstring ourselves when it comes to indexing of verified biographical information. So I don't think there is a policy-driven reason to delete this list, only to police its content to ensure that no one is inaccurately included.

        And unless there's no such thing as a dead Scientologist, then even under an interpretation of BLP most generous to the deletion commenters, we would only have to remove living individuals from this list, not delete it entirely.

        As far as whether self-identification should be required for inclusion, I'm not going to opine right now, except that such a standard obviously would not have relevance to deletion of the list unless there were no notable individuals who self-identified as Scientologists. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this an all similar lists. Listing or "indexing" people by membership to a religious group is not of any encyclopedic value, unless the religious affiliation is at the crux of their notability. However, even then it is important to understand that information like this might be present in popular culture because it serves a negative purpose for those who are detractors of other individuals. In other words superficial "notability" might not be enough if that "notability" (e.g. in terms of Mr. X is notable for being a Y) is based upon the negative politicking of others. In this case that is going to be true often. Given that there is no encyclopedic benefit of the list, we ought to err on the side of caution, especially because of all the BLP inclusions.Griswaldo (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Scott Mac. Not accurate, not useful, and redundant to the scientologist category. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think Category:Scientologists, which cannot annotate or source its members' inclusion, and thus cannot separate between former and current members or explain the basis for stating that they are a Scientologist, is somehow more useful and more accurate than this list? postdlf (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories are for navigational purposes, and are created by tagging actual entries, which themselves contain much more detailed information than lists. Lists cannot deal with nuance and present people on them who often are not similar at all. Besides, what is the purpose of listing "former Scientologists" in the first place?Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, since the category inclusion is controlled at the actual entry that is being tagged it is much easier to keep them in line as well. With lists you can't simply rely upon those who who edit the BLPs themselves to police them for violations. This means we are just open for more problems. The various List of atheists lists, for instance, contain many entries that are not themselves tagged with any "atheist" categories. Why open us up for more problems like that?Griswaldo (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. Your comments are a complete inversion of years of practice at WP:CFD, where categories have frequently been deleted and "listified" exactly because of the ability of lists to deal with nuance over categories. Can you tell me from looking at the subcategories of Category:Scientologists by nationality why they were included? I can't. Nor can I see just from a category tag at the bottom of an article why that article why it was tagged in such a way, or whether there is a source supporting it. So your view just seems backwards to me.

        Further, the "it's too hard to police this list" argument is a good argument for page protection, not deletion. Let people propose on the talk page when they want to add someone, and why. Or we can just delete all articles that are prone to uncited additions and/or vandalism. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- lists like this are inherently encyclopedic and it is pretty obvious to me that there is not a problem with notability here (for one thing, the nomination does not even raise the question of notability). The main concern is "BLP" and the possibility of "negative" information on living people. Two responses seem more appropriate than deletion: first, be conservative about inclusion (especially when someone abandons the "church"); and two, rethink the notion that this amounts to negative information -- by which I mean, someone who is genuinely an adherent to Scientology is very likely to think of inclusion on such a list as "positive" information, not negative. That is really quite a significant point: the idea that it is "negative" seems to arise more from the attitudes towards Scientology held by editors here than by the BLP subjects themselves. Lastly, it seems that there is a campaign against lists of this sort, and it seems to me that this should be addressed as a more general issue, rather than via a series of individual AfDs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a list of people to tag as members of a controversial organization. It's Wikipedia's own little Red Channels. We would be better off without this blemish. →StaniStani  19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete StaniStani makes a good point The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Herring Drawing a comparison between Red Channels and this article is distracting and provides a false comparison, as well as insults and falsely characterized the motives of those of us who have actually worked to improve this article. Who...what person on this article has been so grossly attacked because of this article that the article itself can be compared to a tract that caused over 100 people to lose their jobs and reputation. this article is well documented, has reliable sources, is verifiable, and has also been cleansed of all individuals who have publicly stated they are not scientologists. the comparison is completely invalid.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling my comparison a red herring doesn't make it one. I'm not attempting to distract attention away from this AfD, but instead focus attention on the issues by means of a metaphor. My apologies if I offended any editors who wish to use Wikipedia to tag people with a scarlet 'S'. →StaniStani  05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • no the fact that you are drawing a false comparison and making direct statements bordering on personal attacks to peoples motives in the process makes this a red herring. I guess anyone who disagrees with you must be trying to brand people in your black and white world.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have made no personal attacks, and leave you with your own conclusions. If I have stirred you ill by my statements, I apologize. But be on notice: BLPs and lists that touch them are paid attention to as a matter of WP policy, and there is a new focus on cleaning up some areas where in the past editors have pushed their POVs to the detriment of our common work. →StaniStani  20:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see how this is any different from List of Jews, etc. I could imagine deleting all such lists, but I don't see why this list is any more or less worthy of inclusion. Sourcing issues are irrelevant here. I'd only argue for deletion if this was combined with other religion lists for a general deletion.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per nom and Scott's comments, this is an unmaintainable list, with a great deal of misuse potential. Smacks of the ID lists... ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will defer to consensus regarding whatever happens to this particular list - but wanted to note here as well that I created List of Scientology officials - meant to list individuals by their role in the organization itself, and not identification as "Scientologist". Used source material from this article to create it. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If they can be in a category, then they can be in a list. A cat doesn't have any annotation, so the problems can't be addressed. We label politicians as Democrats or Republicans and they change too, that is why a list can be annotated with that info. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm wondering whether a simple rename to List of people who have practiced Scientology, or something similar, would cure some of the complaints about the "binary" nature of the list, and obviate some of the claimed harm regarding individuals who "dabbled" but dropped it. Such a rename would avoid stating whether someone is/was or isn't/wasn't a Scientologist, if that is a problematic term, and also make it much less of an implication that the listed individuals still practice it. As I've stated above, if a perceived problem can be fixed with anything short of deletion (whether that be by way of page protection, the elimination of certain entries, or the renaming of the list) then deletion should not be an option. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't think broadening the list to include people who only dabbled in Scientology is an improvement, but would instead make this abomination larger. →StaniStani  05:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There appears to be off-Wiki discussion or canvassing related to this AfD.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question how do you draw that conclusion Will?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article follows a precedent set by Lists of Jews and other similar articles. While I see lots of things wrong with some of the information in this article, I see lots of things right about how most of this page is being used. The fact that the page can be abused by some editors is no reason to delete it. Blue Rasberry 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear inclusion criteria, all entries seemed to be ref'd and goes hand-in-hand with WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - This list is nothing like List of Jews or List of Catholics. In the later cases the figures are culturally significant in their own right, within the List of Catholics one has Hilaire Belloc, Geoffrey Chaucer, and John Dryden, in the List of Jews we have the likes of Henri Bergson, Jacob Bronowski, and Benjamin Disraeli. As for the Listof Scientologists its Peaches Geldof, Greta Van Susteren, Laura Prepon, and assorted convicted felons. John lilburne (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(to John)sorry you don't believe that "Peaches Geldof, Greta Van Susteren, Laura Prepon, and assorted convicted felons" are culturally significant in their own right...they all have individual articles and while they may not uphold your stringent standards on what is culturally significant, wikipedia notablilty standards disagree with you. (to everyone) as already mentioned this list is in fact more stringent in it's inclusion criteria than other religious lists, each person mentioned in notable and have a page dedicated to themselves, and maintains the same standard as List of JewsI am really confused as to the policy that is being quoted by the nominator. I am stating that this article does not contain "Vague references to 'poor sourcing' and 'out of date sourcing' but rather contains 214 different reliable sources. flexiblity on behalf of individual wikipedia editors as to what constitutes as "scientlogist"" was taken care of during the last AFD and on the talk page and now there is a pretty solid standard for inclusion which . additionally the breakdown of "former" and "current" exits and deals with the "flexaible" problem. several editors seem to have a problem with individuals on this list...well there is a talk page for that you know...Coffeepusher (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other lists do not contain assorted minor felons. Neither do they list everyone that has ever been near a synagogue, or catholic church. The list of Catholic Authors for example list those authors whose writings are informed by Catholicism, not every author that might have been to mass. If one looks down the list of members one sees thespians, musicians, and convicts, hardly any of whom seem to be notable because of Scientology, and many of whom are notable only in the sense of being of marginal interest to those compiling trivial pursuit and pub quiz questions. Cull it down to the Internationally renowned actors and musicians and you'll have about a dozen names. John lilburne (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the people listed are still notable, each one of them has an article in it's own right. additionally the scientology list does not list anyone who has been near a scientology auditing stand or org. rather individuals who have been identified as scientologists in reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take Martin Buber it is highly unlikely that one could write about him without referring to the fact that he was Jewish. He is notable, and part of that notability arises from his Jewishness. Harry Reid conceivably there is some justification in noting that he is a Mormon as his Mormonness (or whatever) might influence his public behaviour. I don't think the same is the case with most of those listed as Scientologists or former Scientologist. Perhaps the 'keepers' can enlighten me as to how Scientology informs one about the career of Eduardo Palomo? John lilburne (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As written, WP:BLPCAT states that "the subject's beliefs" should be "relevant to their notable activities or public life." (emphasis added) So insisting on a connection to their career is not the correct standard. You can argue on the talk page of the list as to whose public lives this is irrelevant, but you cannot credibly claim it's not relevant to the "public lives" or "notable activities" of any notable individuals. To use the language of your Martin Buber example, "it is highly unlikely that one could write about" Tom Cruise "without referring to the fact that he" is a Scientologist. Nor is it in any way a valid deletion rationale that many of the people in this list are somehow not significant in your opinion, when it's not contestable that they merit articles, so that line of discussion is just a complete waste of time. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list doesn't just include Tom Cruise, it is padded out with the likes of Sofia Milos, Eduardo Palomo, and someone called Elisabeth Moss nowhere is there any indication as to why this fact (if fact it is) is relevant to their notability. Take Elisabeth Moss apparently she was a actress in west wing but not significant enough to get a mention on the West Wing article, I don't see any of the main cast being added to various "List of insert religion here". If a list is needed then list the significant ones, not everyone that has ever sipped the altar wine, or whatever it is Scientologist do.

For example I've just watched the Secret of Kells the credits run on for ages, yet no one would countenance adding each animator and sound engineer to the right hand side of the article page. The same for this list, by lumping together the bit players with the main cast, the list serves no purpose other than to label. John lilburne (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I honestly don't know off the top of my head the basis for claiming Moss is a Scientologist, but as far as who she is, she played the daughter of the President on The West Wing and though not main cast was central to the plot of many episodes. And she was the lead actress in the revival of a David Mamet play on Broadway. And she's one of the lead actors in a little show called Mad Men, for which she has been nominated multiple times for Emmys among other awards. "Delete because I've never heard of these people" is enough of a completely meritless deletion argument in and of itself, without you including people who are far from marginal notability. I doubt anyone would claim that every animator and sound engineer who worked on that Kells film merited their own article, so enough also with the straw man nonsense. Lists of people, however, sub-indexed, can validly include everyone who qualifies for the inclusion criteria without regard to whether they are "super-notable" by whatever subjective notion. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not that she was unknown, but that a) her notability has nothing to do with whether she is a Scientology, and b) that others in that series are better known, and more notable than her, yet they do not feature in some relevant "List of insert religion here". The only reason for listing her and many of the others is to make up the numbers. This does not happen for the main religious groups as some editorial control on significance is employed, the "List of Catholics" does not include every catholic actor that appeared in the 'west wing', nor the Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus. Listing her and others without specifying how the fact is related to the notability is adding undue weight to the relationship and serves no purpose other than simply advertising for Scientology. John lilburne (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeepusher, the inclusion criteria are not strict at all, and they certainly are not in line with WP:BLPCAT. This list includes people based on a single, even passing, mention in a RS describing them as a Scientologist. --JN466 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

over 80% of the entries have more than one reliable source, and I am not sure if we actually need more than one source to "source" a statement (some of those single source entries include L. Ron himself, Mary Sue Hubbard, Davie Miscavige). If you have individual entries which you feel are disputable then please bring those up on the talk page, but a significant majority (over 2/3) of the article does not match the description you have given above. if two out of every 10 entries fall below standard, doesn't it make more sense to tackle those individually rather than delete the entire article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLPCAT; it is clear from your comment that you haven't done so. The quality of sourcing is quite independent of the question whether this list should be deleted. --JN466 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and was responding to your comment "This list includes people based on a single, even passing, mention in a RS describing them as a Scientologist" 2/3 of the lists contain more than "a single, even passing, mention in a RS..." many are self identified and, especially for entertainers and the leadership contained on this list (at least according to the RS their affiliation is relivant), their affiliation to Scientology is more relevant than say...affiliations to other psuto-religions that have lists dedicated to them.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could start by deleting all those living persons who are not self-identified. And then all those whose self-identification is 15 or 30 years old. --JN466 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT applies to categories and infoboxes, not article text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity, BLPCAT applies to list articles as well. Inclusion in a list based on religious belief or sexual orientation requires self-identification. --JN466 02:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:BLPCAT regarding whether the self-identification is "current", nor is there any good reason to insist on such a thing. I imagine there are those who want biographies to contain nothing more than vital statistics, education, and career, no more, and I can't see the encroachment of such arbitrary content inclusion rules as serving any other goal. postdlf (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that goes too far for me. If someone appears on a list of this sort, the clear implication is that they are a Scientologist now. The list really needs to be accurate in that respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is why there is a "current" and "former" section in the list, and membership on this list does not appear anywhere else on wikipedia or on those person's articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's a separate section for "former members." As for those that were verifiably and publicly Scientologists but secretly quit (an interesting hypothesis), we can only rely upon the sources that are available. Surely some would find it just as defamatory to imply that they were not a Scientologist if they were one; just because they hadn't done an interview on the subject in ten years doesn't mean they've dropped their belief system. Which is why lists are better than categories in this area: being able to directly cite a statement of fact allows you also to provide the dates for your sources, so readers can clearly see how current the information is. In no area do we pretend to be any more current than the reliable sources we expressly cite, and there's no way anyone could be liable for libel by restating what available sources say, even if those sources are not recent. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weigand, for example, is listed as a current member, based on two sources dating back to 1980. --JN466 02:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) there is nothing in wikipedia policy stating that a source has to be within a certain time frame to be a WP:RS. I have been a Methodist since 1982 and while 1990 was the last time I went on record claiming that religion it still stands today 20 years later. Does Scientology have a public confirmation policy which would lead us to believe they aren't a member if they don't have up to date paperwork filled out with the local news sources?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Methodism make you a POV pusher, and as such are you a candidate for adding to a list of "Members of minor Christian sects"? If not then it it irrelevant. Does Scientology affect whether someone wins an Emmy, or how they act? If not it is irrelevant. The problem with this list is that it is poorly articulated, there is no discrimination as to who gets on the list because their membership is an important aspect of who they are and their notability, and those whose presence on the list is due to puffing and glossing of a fact of which we can glean no importance. John lilburne (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no it is not irrelevant. First several reliable sources on this list tie actors/actresses success to connections made from scientology. Secondly if I was a notable individual then yes, I could be added to the "list of members of protestant sects" (minor Christian sects...try 70 million members, but I will assume good faith that you were not trying to insult me) I am not notable yet. Third the point was that there is no "sell by date" on reliable sources. Forth...POV pusher??? where the hell did that come from.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over two billion Christians, so 70 million Methodists is less than 5%, a minority in anyone's book. More people admit to being Atheist, Agnostic or non-believer in Japan.

And which sources show the connection between acting success and Scientology? The only sources I can find seem to be a rehash of this list. You wouldn't be quoting some circular reference would you? In any case as they recruit amongst the Hollywood actors one would expect Scientology actors to be getting actor awards. Does Scientology membership figure higher in success than union membership, or having a facebook/twitter account? John lilburne (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aaahhhh I remember this argument too well, the wikipedian arguing that all lists must ultimately come back to wikipedia. as if no other source could possibly exist. Besides all these arguments are not arguments for deleteion, but arguments to fix the content. AFD's are not there to clean up articles, and compared to other articles lists are surprisingly easy to clean up rather than delete.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you couldn't find anything to back up your assertion that wasn't tainted then. Of course it is a growing problem as highlight on the foundation mailing list. Last week I came across a medical article, on a site that seemed to be official and authoritative, that had remarkably similar content to the WP page. It then dawned on me that the site was indeed made up of clones of WP articles. John lilburne (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is actually way too funny. So this is the argument that appeared in Wikipedia review and in the talk archive 2. Recirculating arguments without fact checking is dangerous. Unless you were referring to another source, you should probably know that source was removed back in July and isn't in the article as it is now under discussion. All the entries on that list have either found other reliable sources or were removed from the list. What source were you talking about?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be at cross purposes, I was asking about your assertion that there are RS that demonstrate a connection between acting success and Scientology. All I can find is various versions of this list, but no demonstrative connection between acting success and Scientology. There are a few dozen actors on the list, and I'm confident that there are far more successful actors than those that aren't Scientologists. So I'll ask you again to prove your point that this list demonstrates that Emmy Awards are being corrupted by Hubbardista connections. John lilburne (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so you never said this "The only sources I can find seem to be a rehash of this list. You wouldn't be quoting some circular reference would you?" which mirrors the argument I cited above, so what sources are only a rehash of this list that you speak of? as for the RS I was referring to... reference 63, 75, 79, 84, 86, 87, 103 and I will just stop there for now.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you have learnt how to quote properly by now? The full section is And which sources show the connection between acting success and Scientology? The only sources I can find seem to be a rehash of this list. IOW I was looking for your sources for Emmy Award corruption by Hubbardistas. I couldn't find any all I got was rehashes of this list.

Well now we have your list of reliable sources for "several reliable sources on this list tie actors/actresses success to connections made from scientology" ref 63 is about Hubbardistas getting prizes for recruiting Celebs, not about celebs getting Emmys for being Hubbardistas, nothing in 75 either, 79 is behind a login, 84 is dead or down, ROFL 86 links to a wiki page, you aren't doing to well, 87 has nothing top do with fixing Emmy's or any other award, and 103 has nothing to do with fixing awards either.

You've put up SEVEN references NONE of which support your contention. You really should fall on your sword now and change that vote from keep to DELETE. John lilburne (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm sorry, you see I read quotes like "Cruise has even credited Scientology with helping him overcome his dyslexia. "Nobody gave me a solution, and I wanted to know why the system had failed,", " Just as John Travolta was drawn to the movement as a salvation from the vicissitudes of his Hollywood career", (when asked in what way it impacted an actor as a kid "Communication skills, which are part of his doctrines. And also the ability to be able to, um, predict behaviour in oneself and others so that one can better learn how to operate in a situation". all of this proves my point...but I actually read the articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???? None of which, even if true, addresses the claim that "several reliable sources on this list tie actors/actresses success to connections made from scientology". You first seemed to imply - that their Scientology connections fixed them getting awards, and now you seem to be implying that Scientology has simply helped them to overcome some personal defects. Your position, whatever it is, is like smoke twisting and twirling in the wind. At best these sources are anecdotal, they are not reliable to any claim about Scientology. Certainly not that it can help with Dyslexia, or whatever it is that Travolta thinks he had. John lilburne (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its direct quotes from the people themselves...this is BLP right, and one of the big issues is "self identification" and the quotes I pulled not only show self identification but personal experience with how scientology has helped build them into the people they are. P.S. it was another actor with DyslexiaCoffeepusher (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? The point isn't that they self identify as Hubbardistas, its whether your wild claim that "several reliable sources on this list tie actors/actresses success to connections made from scientology" bears water. For that you need more than anecdotal evidence. Travolta's salvation could have come about by helping out at the Homeless Shelter. Who knows? Self claims are not proof of causality. But thanks for demonstrating the problem with this list being a coatrack for any fancy, or claim that someone might dream up. John lilburne (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"John Travolta was drawn to the movement as a salvation from the vicissitudes of his Hollywood career"Coffeepusher (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) KTHXBYE John lilburne (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, let me spell that out. the reliable source states that John T career was saved by Scientology, unless John T has taken to addressing himself in the third person, the source stated it. you don't have to like or agree with that statement, it's just what the reliable source said.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wait???I remember where I heard that argument, it was on wikipedia review a few months back. are you part of "operation Cirtwatch"?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Scientology list is so large that it sacrifices all proportionality, and I do believe that due to social reasons, being that of a religion, it's simple reduction is a moot point. --ForgottenHistory (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete a list because it is too large? Could you explain a little? DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: I have just removed large amount of discussion involving comments made by banned User:Shutterbug see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug. Any one is free to remove their own comments made to that individual.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the deleted edits that were removed, as the editor is actually not a sockpuppet and has been exonerated. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a directory, or a database, as much as some people would like to think it is. Articles like this can be a magnet for controversial BLP issues, and also prone to encourage article creation for list-padding purposes (I'd be interested to find out how many on the list had their affiliation with the CoS mentioned in the first draft of their article...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as per postdlf. Dwain (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep par Nomoskedasticity's argument. --Europe22 (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and delete the "Jews in ..." etcetera too; inclusion in such lists is defended here by arguments that a reliable source says that someone's career was helped by being Freemason, Jewish, Scientologist, Wikipedian... I don't like it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully protect. The trouble is that to call someone a "Scientologist" is not like calling them a "Christian" or a "Jew". Because of prevailing attitudes to Scientology, if you do call someone a Scientologist, you're potentially causing harm to a living person. You could be damaging their career, for example. So I can understand the BLP-related complaints. But, does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have a list of Scientologists on Wikipedia? Of course it doesn't. If someone's a high-profile Scientologist then that's a very relevant biographical fact, and there are those for whom their practice of Scientology can be proved.

  It is absolutely essential that this list is not used for outing, or for the making of unsubstantiated or poorly-substantiated allegations. BLP policy applies with its full rigour and stricture here, because this is exactly the kind of list that can cause major BLP problems. In the circumstances and in recognition of the significant and valid concerns about this list I think full protection is warranted.

  The real problem isn't actually this list, it's Category:Scientologists. You can't fully protect a category and you can't cite sources in one.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with all of this. We don't delete content just because it's hard to maintain; not when protection is an option and would fully cure the problem of unsourced/inadequately sourced additions. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep due to intrinsic value as inherently encyclopedic reference content. Ombudsman (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of Church of Scientology members. In addition, for List of Unificationists, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination) figured out that the name of the list caused problems and renaming to List of Unification Church members was the answer. Similarly, List of Scientologists should be renamed to List of Church of Scientology members. The problems noted by the nominator should subside after the rename. Also, we do have List of Scientology officials. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename. Additionally arguments that this list is duplicative to the category should be discounted as they ignore Wikipedia:ATA#Other_arguments_to_avoid and WP:NOTDUP --Mike Cline (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, with possible modification. Reason 1: Most wikipedia articles about organizations, including religions, identify notable past and current members, as well as past and current leadership (chairmen, presidents, boards of directors, etc.). Two examples: a- the article for the Supreme Court of the US; aand 2- the article on the Catholic Church hierarchy. Thus. the article is perfectly in line with standard Wikipedia practice.

Reason 2: Scientology as a policy tries to maintain inner workings and operatives in secret --for good reason giving their nefarious actions as detailed in the various Wikipedia articles on SCN (for example, see Operation Snow White). Wikipedia should act against such secrecy with legitimate public information.

I do not find the article to be BLP. It is a list of many people with almost no information about them, solely organized around their membership in SCN, not their lives. There is no other info, much less an article about the people themselves. The article maybe should be modified to include only notable Scientologists and current leadership and important defectors. It should be, of course, very accurate and reliable in who is included in the list.

Finally, I personally find the article both interesting and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycano (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:. I moved the misplaced comment above from the top of the page to the bottom and tweaked format for consistency. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly valid justification for inclusion, intrinsically notable and encyclopedic content, no different than List of atheists or List of Catholics. Swarm ^X 22:46, 27 December 2010 (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.