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. John254 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Social Reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable. Not mentioned in any secondary sources for anything it has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Church of Scientology. No WP:N on its own but a possible search term. JJL (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a large amount of editorial friction if an organization on the secular side of Scientology's Shōji wall were merged into the Church of Scientology on the religious side, especially when religious organizations are forbidden to do political lobbying under IRS rules. AndroidCat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned in multiple secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I told Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) on the talk page that I was going to use those sources to expand the article further, but he started this AfD before I had a chance to do so. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Further reading section for additional secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that I was planning to use to expand the article. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) placed a neutrally worded notice re: this AfD at WP:SCN, and I placed one at WP:PLT. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt. I checked out the sources you posted and they mentioned a group called Florida Citizens for Social Reform. The groups seem to be related but they have different websites. Even if they are the same all the articles say is that some events were sponsored by the group, nothing about it itself that would make it notable over any of the other thousands of political advocacy groups in the USA. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the sources mention "Florida Citizens for Social Reform", yes. But I find it extremely relevant to mention "Florida Citizens for Social Reform" in an article titled: "Citizens for Social Reform". Other sources do not mention "Florida Citizens for Social Reform", and there are still other sources to add as well. It is a notable subject matter with coverage in secondary WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources and should not be deleted. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The organization has chapters that operate at the state and federal levels, and for compliance with rules and laws on political lobbying and spending, naturally they must be separate incorporations. This is beginning to stretch a WP:POINT. AndroidCat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there branches of Citizens for Social Reform in all 50 states then? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Who said it did? AndroidCat (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are certainly enough references to support an article of this size. AndroidCat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since the references exist, there is no reason to delete the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this organization is well-known it should have a WP article. I had never heard of it before and the article so far only has a few passing references to events that it sponsored, nothing about the group itself, from the news media or other secondary sources. Most of the other information in the article is taken from the group's own website. Due to commitments I am taking another break, hopefully long, from Project Scientology. (p.s. I agree that the fact that the CoS engages in political lobbying should be mentioned on WP, but the name of the group they founded to do this does not seem so notable as to have its own article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Scientology corporate front-group of notability.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of Scientology related organizations it could be merged into? Redddogg (talk) 17:28, 5 March 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.