Deletion of Scientology and sex (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Cirt.  As with the Homosexuality and Scientology article, this one clearly meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: More material has been added from additional / secondary sources, still in process of researching and adding more from other secondary sources as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: The issue of sources used was raised at AfD1. AfD1 was closed as keep with promises of fixing the article's references. This AfD2 was listed ten months later and same issue of sources used was raised again. The keep thrust again was promises to fix the article. As the AfD numbers increase, the promises to fix arguments carry less weight. '''Not independent:''' The main trouble I am having with this article is that the content goes straight from Hubbard into Wikipedia, a problem that has been carried from the close of the first AfD into this second AfD. Few of the sources are independent of scientology. When published sources write about topics, they make business decisions as to what is important and what is not. Wikipedia is at its best when it reflects those hard business decisions by using source material at least one step removed from an event that are independent of that event. However, the use of dependent sources avoids dealing with the issue of whether anyone cares about the topic or sufficiently cares about the topic relative to the overall main topic of scientology. Instead, for the most part, the article now presents material for which the Wikipedia editors who entered the dependent material in the article can be said to care about. Is that the purpose of Wikipedia? I don't think it is. '''Content forking:''' I'm also trouble that this article may be a Wikipedia:Content forking|content fork. This article does not represent all significant views of scientology that have been published by reliable sources. Instead, it carves out a some of Hubbard's writings on sex and elevates them as the core doctrine of the Church. The article presumes that everything written by the now dead Hubbard was, is, and always will be the Official view of Scientology. There is nothing in the article that establishes that the listed sex views are the core doctrine of the Church. By not limiting content entrance into the article to independent third-party, published sources and posting the sex topic outside the context of Scientology as a whole, the article appears to be making a big deal out of a minor issue. '''Conclusion''' - The keep positions above appear to agree that the topic meets  but neglect to sufficiently carry the discussion beyond that. While there may be room for scientology and sex in one of Wikipedia's other articles, I don't see any justification in the present write up to maintain an article on the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

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

Comment: This article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_and_sex&diff=254749819&oldid=254734525 re-listed for AfD after {{user3|Cirt}} added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology_and_sex&diff=254734525&oldid=254452374 '''9 reliable sources''' to the article. I do not understand the argument that this is an "|original resesarch effort". If you want to see a real "original research effort", check out Scientology beliefs and practices. Both pages are clearly notable, and the former contains enough reliable secondary sources sufficient to warrant a Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)