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 of the debate wasUmmmmm.... no consensus I afraid. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientology centers[edit]

Listcruft, borderline spam, already been deleted once here Delete-- негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note re: tally below - apart from AFD not being about numerical votes, this article is useful to the relevant WikiProject, WP:SCN and I'd like it kept on that basis - David Gerard 14:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further - if it is decided to delete it, please move it to project space and let me know and I'll try to beat it into nondeletable shape as an article (I don't have time over the next few days) - David Gerard 14:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above box is only to show where people stand so far and as a test. AfD is not a vote, do not base your position on this box in any way if you can avoid it. This disclaimer brought to you by.--T. Anthony 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it me, or has that box run out of space? Two delete votes seem to have been missed out (Terryeo and Skeezix's), despite being in the source code. --Last Malthusian 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. uh, excuse me? Since when is a list of Scientology centers grounds for deletion, as compared to, say, List of sport associations in the Faroe Islands, or List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland??? I hope you're ready to nominate the hundreds of other [Church lists] for deletion as well, then. wikipediatrix 05:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable nominating things that are say, nothing but a list of URL's yes. You, too could be WP:BOLD and do it yourself, as well. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your response several times and still don't understand it. What do you think lists are supposed to be of?? Go here and familiarize yourself with the way of Wikipedia lists if you haven't already. wikipediatrix 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Was previously nominated for speedy by someone else and deleted by me. Just a link depository. -- Scott e^iπ 06:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, currently a link repository, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Are the keep proponents seriously suggesting that this be cleaned up and turned into... well, what? A link-less, comprehensive list of every Scientology center out there? (It's a very, very big list without further valuable information.) A linked list of every Scientology center out there, with wikilinks to articles on those centers? (A very big list becomes a very, very big collection of painfully similar articles.) An article in and of itself with brief descriptions of the centers? (How many times can you justify the repeat of "This is a Scientology Center, much like all the others, except this one is in San Bernadino" on one page?) I can't see this article going anywhere valuable. Tom Lillis 06:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain. Possibly a list of just the celebrity centers would be notable, if quite small. Otherwise I'm thinking this could be like, or lead to, a list of every center of every religion. Which is not what most lists are. I don't think we have a List of Unification churches. Or even a List of Kingdom Halls. If we do then I'll change my tone and be for keep. Right now I don't know. Are centers equivalent to Cathedrals or Basilicas to this faith?--T. Anthony 09:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline delete unless someone cleans it up. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been cleaned up so this should count as a keep.  ALKIVAR™ 07:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without wanting to put words in NSLE's mouth, until he/she says he/she's actually changed his/her mind, clearly it shouldn't. A lot of people aren't convinced by the cleanup (myself included). At the most, if NSLE hasn't commented on the cleanup by the time the discussion closes it should be discounted. --Last Malthusian 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My vote remains delete, that's not a list of Scientology centres, it's a list of cities with Scientology centres. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best we can only replicate the directory already available in the CoS's own websites. Any purpose served by this article is better served by a link to those directories - it is really unlikely for someone seeking information to look for this on wikipedia rather than scientology's own site. Also, this will be a pain to keep updated. In short, redundant, unencyclopedic, and useless.--Fangz 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, go here and familiarize yourself with how Lists work on Wikipedia. Also look here. Lists are not Articles in the conventional sense. They are intended to list things, no more, no less. Like List of school districts in Pennsylvania. Or List of skyscrapers in Poland. Or List of hospitals in South Dakota. Or List of architecture firms. Or List of Ottawa churches. wikipediatrix 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those other lists also have problems. The thing is, with this list there is no way in which it can be useful. If an user wants a list of scientology centres, then they would go quickly to the CoS's own website, where they will find a superior one. If an article needs to invoke a list of scientology centres, then it would also give a link to the current CoS directory instead. Even if written optimally, this list can only verbatim repeat the official, centralised listings, presenting no additional data, collating information from no additional source, and offering no summary or introduction or interpretation that will distinguish it and make it a rightful resident of wikipedia. There is no need for this list, and having this list is harmful because there will be a temptation to use it when in any concievably circumstance, the official CoS list will be better.--Fangz 06:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep my redone list.  ALKIVAR™ 07:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's vastly improved, but I can't see that the content adds value to anyone or anything. Ben Aveling 10:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep beautifully written very informative and encyclopaedic. Like it or not, Wikipedia has lists, and this one is a great example of one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This lists cities that have scientology centers, not articles about those centers themselves. It's also still a link repository which is what wikipedia is NOT. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still a repository of external links, only the cities are linked to articles on the cities (not the Scientology centres). One difference between churches and Scientology centres is that Scientology centres are clearly way further over the advertising line than, shall we say, "mainstream" churches. --Last Malthusian 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Sports associations and LGB centres, to use the example at the top, are also far more non-profit (if that's an adjective). -LM[reply]
• Delete. This is just advertising. Would we want List of US Army recruiting centres? Or a list of every church in the world? DJ Clayworth 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid, verifiable, useful list. Each item even has a reference - what more could you ask from a list? Oh, and that tally box is pretty ugly and not needed - AfD should be about discussion, not mere vote counting. Turnstep 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — In actuality this is just a list of links to the city pages with a reference link to the Scientology web site. It is not a list of links to articles on the actual sites. This is just a sneaky way of appearing to be a valid list. WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". — RJH 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many good lists on WP that are not indices to WP content: eg. ISO 3166-1, a featured list. --- Charles Stewart 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there are zero good lists that are indices of external links. ISO 3166-1 has a good, well-written intro, followed by a list which is not a list of external links. Really, just look at the article you linked to. Look at it. Then look at this one. Then look at a fluffy kitten (no reason, but why not?) Then tell me that this list up for discussion has the same merits as ISO 3166-1. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking it up it has also linked to actual articles since in least May 2003, maybe from the beginning. Also I didn't even know a list could be honored. I thought everything concerning lists on Wikipedia was just criticism.--T. Anthony 10:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should emphasise that I linked to that list to defeat the misconception that WP should only host lists that are indices to WP articles. There is a case for lists to have encyclopediac value other than linking to articles. Note that while ISO 3166-1 does link to countries and acronyms, it is in no sense an index to those articles: we have better lists for that purpose. --- Charles Stewart 16:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, preferably with thermite.　Link farm. Oh, and not a single one of the adjectives Zordrac used above applies, nor do the bogus comparisons supplied by wikipediatrix convince. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too much like a Scientology directory and an encyclopedia is not the place one would look for such information. -- Kjkolb 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep-I found out there is a List of mosques so a generalized list of houses of worship is acceptable. On the other hand that list links to articles at Wikipedia so if this survives it should link to Scientology centers that are already important enough to have articles. Still some arguments on its usefulness, in the comment section below, have some merit. Then again Scientology is certainly not as noteworthy as Islam. Also it could use some annotation and links showing notability. For now the link simply seems to show that they exist and they are centers, which doesn't say much. Then David Gerard made some sense so I'll go back to weak keep and stay there.--T. Anthony 15:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus the list of mosques only lists mosques that are notable - not school/American town/radio mast notable, but notable notable. Unless there are really only three mosques in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it's possible that's the purpose of this list too, but there's no explanation as to what makes them notable either in the list or in a linked article, so hello WP:V. --Last Malthusian 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreeing with Calton, Kolb, mgm, etc... Eusebeus 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it now it has been cleaned up Yuckfoo 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam and uncecyclopedical --Adam1213 Talk + 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers--T. Anthony 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete listcruft. --Bachrach44 15:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Move to WP:SCN project namespace. Not an appropriate article (WP:Not a directory), but Dave gherard has convinced me that the list is useful for the Scientology project. Note that a map showing the distribution of all Scientology centres, as suggested by User:Vilerage on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers would be a worthy addition to the article. I'm concerned that the article has been deleted while the AfD is open without citation of any CSD criteria: this is interference in the AfD process. --- Charles Stewart 16:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did it get deleted? It's still there AFAICS. --Last Malthusian 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page was recreated, but now non-admins don't have access to all of the edit history. Look at Special:Undelete/List of Scientology centers--- Charles Stewart 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has not been deleted during the AfD. It was last deleted at 00:58 UTC 0n 12/7. I AfD'ed it 5mins later, at 01:03 --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed: I misunderstood what was going on. There is no problem here. --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found the justification for Scott Burley's sppedy deletion [1]. He appears to be claiming the article falls under WP:CSD A3, a judgement I disagree with at least for the article in the form I first saw: there is too much structure for that. --- Charles Stewart 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just a duplicate of the CoS's list, and has no useful annotation and little possibility for annotation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice, I hate scientologists. Stifle 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only reason offered for this vote, I suggest that the closing admin disregards this vote. --- Charles Stewart 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed even though I'll admit I do hate Scientology. (I don't hate Scientologists necessarily, some of them don't understand it or got into in a bad period of their lives or other reasons I don't feel like judging them all)--T. Anthony 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "I hate scientologists" quote to his name on the above table so it'll be easier for a closing admin to see.--T. Anthony 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a website for others. Jtmichcock 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: hard to maintain, low encyclopedic value, incomplete (for sure there's Scientology center in Prague not listed here). Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, which is all this article is. It is not a list of Wikipedia articles (existing or potential), which would be useful and should remain, but a list of links. Luigizanasi 06:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this ain't a recreation, as is obvious from comparing the actual article content. Furthermore, it's evidence that AFD nominators should be required to notify the relevant WikiProject - this is prime material for WikiProject Scientology. We'd really like this one to stay. Thanks. - David Gerard 14:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the opening mission statement of WP:SCN: "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better develop and organise information in articles related to Scientology." There's no information and no articles here. --Last Malthusian 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Also, if this data is useful to you, surely there are plenty of places it can be kept other than the main namespace. User pages, the project page, your hard drives, etc. --Last Malthusian 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If WP Scientology wants it, why don't we make it into a project page? I've listed this AfD on the wikiproject's talk page. --- Charles Stewart 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems ok.  Grue  16:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless. Marginally useful. If the Scientology people want it then let them keep it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop assuming that "the Scientology people" are the ones who created this article and are pushing for Keep. Showing the full scope of Scientology outposts and their locations is highly relevant to anti-Scientologists as well as pro-Scientologists. Not to mention the average observer with no axe to grind in either direction. wikipediatrix 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "Scientology people" I'm not thinking of Scientologists - I'm thinking of David Gerard. Sorry for being unclear. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.... gotcha. Sorry I jumped the gun, Haukur. Some other persons have made me cranky lately.... *smile* wikipediatrix 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing but a list of cities with external links, which is a blatant violation of the "Wikipedia is not a catalog of external links" dictum. I am not even going to bother tyring to figure out how to edit that ugly table to add my vote to the count. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wiki isn't an advertising base. A list of Scientology organizations is the work of the Church of Scientology, you want such a list they would be happy to provide it (I assume). Would you want a list of every First Babtist Church in California, for example? Terryeo 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do have List of Ottawa churches, List of churches in the United Church of Canada, List of mosques in Singapore, List of churches in Adelaide, Places of worship in Hong Kong, List of Jewish youth organizations, List of churches, List of Buddhist temples, List of Catholic schools in New York, List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States, List of churches in Venice, List of Church of the Nazarene schools, List of Churches in the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware, List of Church of Scotland synods and presbyteries, List of Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod districts, List of Presbyterian Denominations in Australia, Romney, WV Churches, etc., etc. Better start deleting all those too. wikipediatrix 14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with those lists as well, at least those are lists of churches, not simply lists of cities which have churches and then links to their external websites. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

This article is a list of churches that just happens to be ordered by city. And I've already stated repeatedly that if the external links are what makes the difference, I don't mind if someone removes them. wikipediatrix 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that's simply not true. Just look at the first one, under Argentina. The link is to Buenos Aires, Argentina, not to Scientology Center of Buenos Aires, or however they're named. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Zoe, the names of the cities are Wikified links because it is Wikipedia formatting style to do so. The links to each individual Scientology center is given as a reference link (y'know, the little number after each city?). wikipediatrix 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which makes this nothing but a LinkFarm, something explicitly forbidden in WP:NOT. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You're arguing in circles. Short of deleting it, what needs to be done to the article, in order to satisfy you? Just tell me and I'll do it. wikipediatrix 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perhaps not very useful to many, but does it hurt to keep it? Like wikipediatrix said, there's a whole lot of lists on Wikipedia that shoulr be deleted if this one gets deleted. (List of trivia lists). (Entheta 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Last Malthusian, quote what you like ;) it's a weak keep. I just don't see any reason to delete it when Wikipedia is so full of lists. I'm not a "her", btw :) (Entheta 17:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

My bad, guess I just automatically assumed because of the 'a' ending :) --Last Malthusian 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- There is a big difference between some of the articles mentioned above, such as List of Ottawa churches, which are lists organizing information in Wikipedia, and the subject article, which is just a repository of external links. As such, it's something that one ought to look for on Scientology's website, not here. Skeezix1000 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might just as easily posit that one ought to look elsewhere to a more official website for anything rather than on Wikipedia, by the same token. Should we also delete the thousands of TV show/movie articles and say that they're something one ought to look for on IMDB's website, not here? wikipediatrix 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've misunderstood Skeezix's objection. Lists that are indexes to articles here on Wikipedia have a useful organisational role to play in this encyclopedia. Lists of links to content elsewhere on the internet are quite different: if a page consists mostly of these, then it is rather like a section of a directory, and WP:NOT expressly says that is not what this enterprise is about. We don't have a firm rule saying that such pages can never have a place on WP, but the onus is definitely on the article's defenders to say why such content is necessary. --- Charles Stewart 23:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not called "List of Links to Scientology Center Webpages", and it was never intended to be that. It's "List of Scientology Centers". I only threw the links in as a sort of, you know, extra bonus. *smile* Like I keep saying (over and over and over), I'm fine with the external links being removed, because it's not about the links. I do maintain that a list of centers for this highly controversial and high-profile organization is extremely notable and extremely important information for researchers of all viewpoints. And hey, I'll be glad to create a separate article stub for each of the Centers, if that's what it takes. wikipediatrix 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this is not a "List of Scientology Centers". This is a "List of cities which have Scientology Centers". Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • What do you make of the suggestion of having a map of the Scientology centres (see talk)? --- Charles Stewart 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Short of deleting it, what needs to be done to the article, in order to satisfy everyone? Just tell me and I'll do it. wikipediatrix 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Other - Right now the article seems like a list of links, but it also seems that it has potential (and it may be needed for the related project). I have also noticed that the article was created and (speedy?) deleted in 9 minutes, and then it got an AfD (three minutes after re-creation/undelete). I think that time should be given, in order to let the contributing editors show whether this article is indeed needed, or it could be provisionally moved from Main_space to User_space, be expanded and worked, and then listed normally in Main_space. +MATIA ☎ 22:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a valid speedy deletion as nothing but links to external sites. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Projectify. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:30, 12 December 2005 (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.