Deletion of Scientology controversies

Comment: and the nom is bordering on being Y, as well. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive138#Unacceptable|This discussion by Sceptre four days prior to the nomination is troubling. This is not the first time I've witnessed a 'Screw the consensus, it's my way or the highway' attitude from him, which is a reckless disregard of how this encyclopedia is supposed to operate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: There are three issues here: is the subject notable, is it justifiable to have an article about the subject and is the article adequate? The subject is certainly notable and well-documented. There's far too much material to incorporate into Scientology, so it's a justifiable #Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles|spinout article. However, I do agree that there are some major POV problems; the article badly needs to be cleaned up. However, that isn't, by itself, grounds for deleting an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: Extremely |notable article topic, and yes, it certainly does have plenty of citations to / secondary sources.  Very useful article to tie in lots of sub-topics/articles together - though it could use some cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: A well-written and researched article on a ''highly'' notable subject. POV issues should be resolved on the talk page, not by nominating the article for deletion. As everyone else here seems to agree, could someone close this under , please
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Sceptre, I'm trying to |assume good faith here, but I suspect this may be yet another unnecessary exercise in |point making regarding the word "controversy" in article titles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive138#Unacceptable. Please stop. If that is not the case, this subject clearly meets |notability standards and the references are both |reliable and |verifiable. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:POINT||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:RS||WP:VERIFIABLE)

Comment: I agree with the nominator that the "Look how many sources this article has!" argument is detrimental to his case, and understand why he would set up a "straw man argument" in an attempt to discurage that line of thought.  I agree that with all the  already contained in the article, this article is not only notable, but has all the internal mechanisms neccisary to fix any problems within the article.  additionaly this article is a main page for a subset of scientology related articles so deleting it would (sorta, i understand I am misusing the word but I think it works) "orphin" a block of articles, and the redirect that was done by the nominator would have cramed even more information into the Scientology page, which is already huge.  also I don't believe that we should edit in fear of lawsuits, just in accordance to the law.  Perhaps the nominatior would like to review the law books (in the US. and the UK) and let us know exactly what stature he is worried about us beeing sued for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The article definitely has a lot of problems, but they're basically all  violations. Many general statements are backed up by sources with more specific points -- such as saying "...has a reputation for hostile action toward anyone that criticizes it..." and sourcing that statement with 4 specific cases of intimidation. Sources/wording in this article needs to be changed so that it makes use of literature that's critical of the organization, rather than making originally-researched generalizations based on news reports. These issues are more than workable though. The topic is certainly more than notable -- Scientology is, after all, probably the most controversial religion, if not one of the most controversial topics overall, of our time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: A controversy article on Scientology is valid because the Scientology movement has been... well... ''controversial''. The nominations dismissal of "Look how many sources this article has!" looks arrogant, considering that the presence of relevant and reliable sources goes right at the heart of the |notability and |verifiability policies. To make it clear, the sources clearly demonstrate that this is a topic which is of considerable public interest and therefore notable. Three of the six points listed in the nomination are irrelevant to deletion. Weasel words, and NPOV problems are all surmountable. The last point about the church suing is a problem I'd classify as "very potential", and if the church did take legal action, that would be an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation, and not the community. Points one and two just shows that this is an example of  style coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:SUMMARY)