Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Lottick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to Scientology controversy#Allegations of mistreatment of members. --bainer (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person committed non-notable suicide. Article is inherently POV as his only mention in media is as a take-off point for a POV piece attacking Scientology and, IMO, is more of a journalist styling than any inherent notability for Lottick. Note that the basis of notability mentioned in the article is "controversy" but there was no actual (notable) controversy over the suicide; no charges filed, etc. Please do not be impressed by the number of references as there is a degree of duplication, triviality, and inclusion of non-related notable issues such as the fight between the Church of Scientology and Time Magazine. Note also that the large number of links to the article is due to inclusion in the Scientology template, a very questionable inclusion given the total lack of relative importance. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Scientologist but I rarely nominate articles for deletion and only those few that really, IMO, do not belong here. Thank you for your time. Justanother 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Scientology controversy. I agree that the article has serious problems, but I also think the information is notable and deserves a place here, even if not its own page. – Scartol · Talk 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested above. The article as stands is probably a case of WP:BLP1E, but could make up a small mention in the related article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Article is notable, and well-sourced to WP:RS cites in proper formatting. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also an interesting note, I don't know how many times an article that was deemed fit by the WP:DYK folks to be featured in the Did you know? section on the Main Page has gotten deleted, but for this article's appearance there, see March 20, 2007. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- On that, you and I both know that DYK is not about the quality of the article to any great degree, it is mainly about getting 1500 more characters in the encyclopedia. If I had caught this when it was up for nom as DYK and tagged it as the one-sided or non-notable or whatever then it would not have made DYK. Let's simply judge the article on its merits. --Justanother 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish, I just thought it should be noted here, in case other people didn't know about the DYK. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- There have been at least a few cases I know of where DYKs were later deleted, generally based on non-notability. I'm not going to review all 180 archives to find out just how many, though. John Carter 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish, I just thought it should be noted here, in case other people didn't know about the DYK. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- On that, you and I both know that DYK is not about the quality of the article to any great degree, it is mainly about getting 1500 more characters in the encyclopedia. If I had caught this when it was up for nom as DYK and tagged it as the one-sided or non-notable or whatever then it would not have made DYK. Let's simply judge the article on its merits. --Justanother 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also an interesting note, I don't know how many times an article that was deemed fit by the WP:DYK folks to be featured in the Did you know? section on the Main Page has gotten deleted, but for this article's appearance there, see March 20, 2007. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Request to closing admin - If the consensus of this AfD does end up being to merge, please do not delete the article's history when you merge it, so that we can use it to merge to the proper article. Also, as a comment for this discussion, if we are going the way of the merge, probably the article on The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power would be more appropriate to merge to, then Scientology controversy. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep The article subject is notable because of the tragic events caused by the cofs in this person's life. It is NPOV, verifiable and reliably sourced. This article definitely belongs in Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge - Subject seems to have been discussed in Time, Reader's Digest, and the St. Petersburg Times, which would seem to me to be sufficient to establish notability. Having said that, I can see how it is possible the article may never see much improvement over its current state, and on that basis can agree to a merge if that's the way the dicussion goes. But the content seems to be supported by enough sources to meet notability criteria. John Carter 13:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is a good solution as Lottick has zero notability on his own and only has relevance as part of so-called "Scientology controversy". That lack of notability in and of himself inevitably leads to this being somewhat of a WP:COATRACK article --Justanother 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if the article is to be merged, I think a merger with The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, which seems to be his most prominent public mention, may very well be the best solution. John Carter 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is to be merged, I agree with John Carter. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - if the article is to be merged, I think a merger with The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, which seems to be his most prominent public mention, may very well be the best solution. John Carter 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is a good solution as Lottick has zero notability on his own and only has relevance as part of so-called "Scientology controversy". That lack of notability in and of himself inevitably leads to this being somewhat of a WP:COATRACK article --Justanother 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Subject is notable. It was covered in a large piece done in Time magazine. Also caused a $416 million lawsuit to be filed by the church of scientology against Time Magazine. Article is well researched. It's also an appropriate length. Lastly the article is NPOV. I don't see any POV pushing in the article at all. Everything is fact in the article and is well cited. Elhector 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the center of what became a very notable discussion he is notable. The reliability of the sourcing is impeccable, and make for WP:N by any reasonable view of it.DGG (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not making any characterizations here at this AfD, but in light of Justanother (talk · contribs)'s comment above: "In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Scientologist but I rarely nominate articles for deletion and only those few that really, IMO, do not belong here." - I think that it is relevant to point out prior related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) and at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), both of which are mentioned and related in a current ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Athaenara. Check out the discussions if you like and make your own judgements. Thank you. (I let Athaenara (talk · contribs) know that I was referencing her WP:RFA discussion here, via a note on her talk page.) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- cough cough, and here is the "helpful" critic of Scientology to perhaps imply that Justanother is a hypocrite or something?? --JustaHulk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons noted above. (I personally find the suggestion that this was a "non-notable suicide" offensive, though that is not my reason for voting to keep.) --Modemac 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of getting your panties in a bunch, Modemac (why is it always the Scientology critic that takes exception), why not just WP:AGF and assume that I meant it exactly the way it is stated - that there was nothing notable about the suicide that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I am, of course, sensitive to the tragic aspects, especially as a father myself. If I wanted to be overly sensitive, I would be more "offended" that Justanother (me) said that his life was non-notable. --JustaHulk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Justanother is a great guy but he needs to watch his expressions sometimes. Steve Dufour 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will not vote on this AfD since I am taking an indefinite break from Project Scientology articles. However I would like to mention that there are about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA and the suicide rate in this county is about 5 in 100,000 people per year. One suicide is not all that notable, although very sad of course. (The rate of suicide for Scientologists seems to be somewhat lower than the national average BTW.) Steve Dufour 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, did you obtain statistics for scientologist suicides from a reference, or are you speculating?--Fahrenheit451 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The famous anti-Scientology website "whyaretheydead?" lists about 30 or so Scientologist suicides. This is far fewer than would be expected over the 50 years of Scientology history. BTW it looks like I might be coming back to the project soon. Steve Dufour 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, you base your conclusion on thirtysome listed suicides on that particular website. I know of three suicides in the cofs that never made it to that website. I am curious why you assume that low number is accurate.--Fahrenheit451 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of 4 suicides of CofS members that are not listed on that site. 3 were former friends and 1 was a family member. Of the 4 I know the 1 that was one of my family member was the only one that didn't blame CofS in there suicide note. Elhector 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a little trouble with that, Hector. I have 30 years in Scientology and personally know of only one suicide by a Scientologist maybe 5 - 10 years ago, a friend I had known since I became involved. Even F451 says that he "knows of" three more, not that they were his friends. Don't really want to call you a liar (and I am not) but that you know four seems like a major statistical exceedance. --JustaHulk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of 4 suicides of CofS members that are not listed on that site. 3 were former friends and 1 was a family member. Of the 4 I know the 1 that was one of my family member was the only one that didn't blame CofS in there suicide note. Elhector 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, you base your conclusion on thirtysome listed suicides on that particular website. I know of three suicides in the cofs that never made it to that website. I am curious why you assume that low number is accurate.--Fahrenheit451 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The famous anti-Scientology website "whyaretheydead?" lists about 30 or so Scientologist suicides. This is far fewer than would be expected over the 50 years of Scientology history. BTW it looks like I might be coming back to the project soon. Steve Dufour 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have been invited back to the project so I will cast my vote of "delete". The young man's story is sad but he is not really notable even if the anti-Scientologists want to use him for their purposes. These are the same people who expressed the hope that Tom Cruise's baby would be born deformed. Steve Dufour 04:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the implication that editors in favour of keeping the article are "the same people who expressed the hope that Tom Cruise's baby would be born deformed" to be extremely offensive. AndroidCat 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Personally, I am comparatively uninvolved in Scientology, and (I hate to admit) never even heard or saw anything which led me to think that anyone had ever expressed such views about Cruise's baby. Frankly, though, I have to agree that some almost certainly did, and I have no reason to doubt Steve's statement above to a degree. I agree that Steve may have been casting the net a bit wide in his comments above, and that such generalities, particularly on such unpleasant subjects, should be avoided. However, I can also understand that seeing such comments expressed in the first place is probably at least as offensive, particularly on religious grounds as is the case in this instance, and that it might be understandable that someone vent on it once in a while, even if we would all regret it later. By the way, I'd like to welcome Steve back to the project. Like I said, I don't know Scientology that well myself, and think we need as many knowledgeable editors on the subject as possible to try to preserve the objectivity of all the relevant content. John Carter 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- John, see this page. The webmaster of that page has edited Wikipedia but I have not seen him around lately. But I am sure Steve refers more to the general group of alt.religion.scientology regulars that we do have around here always and the general tone of ARS. --JustaHulk 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Personally, I am comparatively uninvolved in Scientology, and (I hate to admit) never even heard or saw anything which led me to think that anyone had ever expressed such views about Cruise's baby. Frankly, though, I have to agree that some almost certainly did, and I have no reason to doubt Steve's statement above to a degree. I agree that Steve may have been casting the net a bit wide in his comments above, and that such generalities, particularly on such unpleasant subjects, should be avoided. However, I can also understand that seeing such comments expressed in the first place is probably at least as offensive, particularly on religious grounds as is the case in this instance, and that it might be understandable that someone vent on it once in a while, even if we would all regret it later. By the way, I'd like to welcome Steve back to the project. Like I said, I don't know Scientology that well myself, and think we need as many knowledgeable editors on the subject as possible to try to preserve the objectivity of all the relevant content. John Carter 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the implication that editors in favour of keeping the article are "the same people who expressed the hope that Tom Cruise's baby would be born deformed" to be extremely offensive. AndroidCat 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hope Steve's comment above does not have the taint of provocation, particularly that sort of provocation conceived and encouraged by a vested interest with habit of COI editing. His statement, "I have been invited back to the project so I will cast my vote of "delete"." is most curious.--Fahrenheit451 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, there are probably Scientologists who wish bad things for Scientology critics. That is wrong too. Steve Dufour 12:54, 2 November 2007 (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.