Deletion of Homosexuality and Scientology

Comment: per Cirt's nice defense.  Meets  and more than meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Having read both Cirt and Justallofthem's discussions on this AFD, I'm still going to go with Cirt. AFD is not the venue for discussing content issues, but whether an article is viable. There is no Wikipedia rule anywhere that quantifies how many RS'es are required. There is also a little thing called  that must be taken into account. On a topic like this, it is imperative that both sides be covered, and therefore primary sources are, in my opinion, not only acceptable, but necessary, as this article is about a particular organization's/religion's point of view. Also, given the controversial nature of Scientology, secondary sources may not necessarily be trustworthy one way or the other in terms of accurately describing the POV under discussion; at least if you see a sentence that says "Scientology believes XYZ" and the source comes from a Scientology manual, then you know it comes from the horse's mouth, whereas secondary sources are good for criticial response to that POV or third-party interpretation of said view. If anything, this article needs more primaries, along with more secondary sources. There are certainly areas that need improvement, and it must be checked for  issues, etc. The subject matter is also legitimate because proponents of Scientology feel it is a legitimate religion, therefore (and I don't recognize  in citing this example) if we have Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, then a properly researched article on a similar topic relating to ''this'' religion is a perfectly viable subject, as long as  is maintained
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNOREALLRULES||WP:BLP||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: There are actually / secondary sources given in the article itself already, including
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)