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. Black Kite 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

After searching in multiple databases/news archives, I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that significantly discuss or analyze "Golden Age of Tech" in relation to Scientology. One book, Controversial New Religions makes a passing mention in a footenote on one page, but I could not find any other books not affiliated with the Church of Scientology that discussed this subject matter in any significant detail. Another passing mention is made in Scientology's Study Technology by David S. Touretzky and Chris Owen - but this is also briefly and in one sentence, and not enough of a significant discussion to assert notability. I found zero mention whatsoever in 2 different news archive sources, and no results in InfoTrac. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given, I guess. It's kind of silly because we have David Miscavige acknowledging its existence as well as that of GAK. WillOakland (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This source provides a minimal description. WillOakland (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for providing that source, and that could be very useful at articles David Miscavige and Church of Scientology, but I don't think it is enough significant discussion and analysis to warrant notability. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added two other mentions to Talk:Golden Age of Tech, but they're not very notable. AndroidCat (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, again could be good sources for other main articles, but they are both less than one-sentence mentions, not really significant discussion of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Scientology. Probably not notable by itself, but I'm certainly familiar with it and I think it plays a significant role in the CoS. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to back up that assertion? Cirt (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable article. Merge to main article. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is only notable within the cofs. Excerpting and merging into the main article may improve the main article, however.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 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.