The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. JustaHulk ( talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So yes, the article violates that policy, too. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply"the article is not based primarily on such sources"
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. JustaHulk ( talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So yes, the article violates that policy, too. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply"the article is not based primarily on such sources"