Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbols of Scientology (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion about merging can be continued on Talk:Scientology. –MuZemike 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Scientology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across the article today, I am not convinced its encyclopedic. Each on of the symbols can be adequately covered in a caption in the relevant article thus this seems to be a unnecessary Content fork. . This frankly looks extremely crufty and lack half the symbols it discusses. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a valid article. The lack of actual pictures is a minor cleanup issue, and would only require another editor who cares enough to remedy; otherwise deletion is not a valid cleanup issue. As far as covering the symbols in "the relevent article", this looks a lot like the most relevent article. I can't find anything at fault here that needs deletion. --Jayron32 04:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Article is short enough so that the table would be collapsible into the main scientology article. I wouldn't call it crufty however, as it is similar to the other many religious articles out there on WP.The^FSAviator • T 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32 –BuickCentury Driver 08:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree with valid analysis above by TheFSaviator (talk · contribs), any relevant (and sourced) material could be merged to the article Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the verdict here? The^FSAviator • T 00:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been less than 4 days; AFD discussions run a minimum of 7 days. Give it time. --Jayron32 05:09, 23 November 2010 (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.