User:Roke/Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Universism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discussion on Deletion Review 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Undelete and relist on AfD -- Some Editor 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universism

Also has been created under Universist movement, and probably some others as well. It was AFDed several times, I believe, and recreated, etc. I know just mentioning it here is going to make me very unpopular, and I'm not even sure I want such a page undeleted, but I think it deserves more scrutiny that it's gotten since the first AFD almost a year ago. I also want to make it known I have no connection to the group, and know almost nothing about it.

Since it's first AFD, this "religion" or whatever you call it, has recieved some attention in national media. It's been in US News and World Report twice [1], [2]. It should be noted that only the first was really much about the group, the second was about secular humanism in general, and does little more than mention Univerism. Also, it should be noted that both articles are by the same person, so it might be reflecting the interests of a single journalist more than it should. The group was also the subject of a short bit on CNN recently. [3] (it's about 3/4 of the way down the page, look for the names FOREMAN or FORD VOX). They've also been written about in the LA Times [4]. There are claims of others too, but this is what I could verify with a very quick search. I think enough has changed, in terms of the size and notability of the movement, that we cannot use prior AFDs to justify the deletion of this page, and we have to look at the group/article on its own merits. I'm not saying every group that's been mentioned in a newspaper on appeared for 2 minutes on CNN is worthy of a wikipedia article, but I think it deserves some discussion, more than "we've been through this already, delete".

Also, it is pretty much true that the editors of this article in the past have been Univerists, and POV has been an issue. The article, if recreated/undeleted, will likely need quite a bit of time and effort devoted to it to keep it neutral and verifiable. -R. fiend 18:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, on the basis of R. Fiend's suggestion alone as good enough for me, relist most recent reasonable version. Xoloz 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletions/keep deleted. I was not involved in any of the prior deletion votes, but it seems to me that the deletion process and its outcome were completely legitimate. (There was apparently a sort of consensus at the last VfU not to bring this topic up again until March 2006, but I guess we're almost there, so no harm in discussing it now.) I think the topic is borderline notable, and relisting it wouldn't do any harm (though I'd still vote to delete after reviewing the "new information," which I find pretty insubstantial). If recreated, it needs very close and sustained attention for neutrality and defense against the soapboxing, linkspamming, and self-promotion that were common with the prior articles. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For other editors' reference, prior discussion is at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism (Dec 2004), Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement (Mar 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universism 2 (Mar 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Universist Movement Organization (Apr 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universist movement (Feb 2006), and Talk:Universism.

• • This is exactly the thing I wanted to avoid, decisions based on earlier VFDs. The first VFD (more than a year ago) was certainly valid, but nearly all the others have been speedy deletes based on that single vote. Since that time, Universism has appeared in several very well-known publications. That cannot be denied. What we should be discussing here is whether the group was "featured" or "mentioned" and whether these generally pretty short blurbs are enough to warrant an article. When looking at it that way, the original VFD cannot be used as a measurment, as it predated all the media appearances. We should look at this on its merits, ignoring all previous discussions. This is not a procedural DRV (no one is saying the original VFD was improper) this is a case of new information coming to light. -R. fiend 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure I understand what R.fiend wants to accomplish with this DRV; he doesn't mention taking any particular action. Was the point to have a DRV to point to in order to avoid speedy deletion of this article on its next rewrite? -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Or undelete and edit one of the several articles already written. Right now various people are making what I think are good faith attempts to write an article on this, and it gets speedily deleted each time because of a year old VFD. On the last one someone said it should be taken to DRV, so that's what I'm doing. If consensus is that there should not be an article on Universism because it hasn't made an impact yet or isn't notable or whatever, I'm fine with that, but we shouldn't cling to an very old VFD as if it's the only game in town. -R. fiend 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Got it. As of now, a recent version has been undeleted and is currently present; I support undeletion and suggest no further action be taken until/unless article is proposed for deletion. -ikkyu2 (
    • Since the article's been blanked, let me be clear that my vote would be Undelete and relist with the new sources added. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

talk) 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I stand with R. fiend on this; I think the speedy delete was understandable (given how many times this group has tried to recreate the article without addressing the reason it was deleted by VfD/AfD twice) but incorrect (since the latest version did address the issue by including significant proofs of notability beyond what had been provided in previous versions.) For reference, I voted "Delete" in every previous VfD/AfD for this article, based on the group having shown no evidence of notability. Based on the evidence now presented, I would vote a keep if the article was placed on AfD. I think the article should be un-speedied; if someone wants to nominate it for AfD, let them do so, but R.fiend is absolutely right that we can't just say "speedy it now because most of it is previously deleted content" when the part that isn't is directly relevant to the reason the content was AfD'd before. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't recall AfDs having an explicit "sell-by date" as R. fiend suggests, and speedy for substantially recreated content is perfectly appropriate unless DRV explicitly states otherwise: Antaeus Feldspar is putting the cart before the horse. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Calton, perhaps the letter of policy supports that, but I suggest that the spirit does not. To work with an analogy that I suggested on Talk:Universist movement, it's like tossing someone who's 18 and has a legal ID out of a liquour store because he used to try and sneak in with a fake ID back when he was underage. Now if you want to argue that they still don't meet the criteria for notability, then go ahead. But what you are arguing is "it doesn't matter whether the reasons that got the article deleted before still apply; what matters is that it did get deleted before." -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Calton: Speedy for substantially recreated content is certainly appropriate, unless DRV states otherwise - I don't think that's in dispute. However, this is DRV, and the topic's being brought up to see whether or not the new source information renders it appropriate for DRV to reverse its prior consensus; i.e., has the topic gained enough notability since AfD#1 to reverse the consensus. What I can't figure out is whether your "keep deleted" vote is on the grounds of "DRV already deleted this" or "the new information isn't good enough;" if the former, may I suggest you review the new information and comment with regard to its merits? -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Calton, (and Zoe, who deleted it again): I don't understand. What's wrong with having a copy of the article while we're discussing whether it might be suitable, with new information that's come to light? How is process so important in this regard that we have to keep it deleted, while responsible editors are engaged in a good faith effort to re-evaluate it on merit? Why not let people write an encyclopedia? It's not like it's being recreated by vandals, or socks or something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete: Appears to have sufficiently overcome earlier objections. Ombudsman 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the excellent analogy of Antaeus Feldspar. Also, I suggest if we didn't make it so hard to get stuff undeleted, there wouldn't be so much resistance to deletion. It should be easy to delete things lacking verifiable signficance, with the full knowledge, that new information, can get them undeleted, without problem. If anybody still thinks the new version is not adequate, they can obviously, renom it. --Rob 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per R. fiend's evidence of media coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. CalitalistRoadster (among others) checked the claimed sources and found no credible evidence of notability at the last AfD. POV from the Universists is an obvious problem, and there is a dearth of independent verifiable evidence available from which to build a balanced view against which to weigh that POV. Guy 09:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I won't vote since my last name is Vox. What do you mean someone "checked the claimed sources and found no credible evidence of notability at the last AfD." The point of this discussion as far as I can tell is where are the Universists now, not where we were. Where are we now? http://universist.org/media.htm -- far more notable than many groups on Wikipedia. Keeping us out really is just a grudge based on the fact that the first article in 2003 was a bit premature, and the contentious debate concerning it a year later. Wikipedia was a different place in 2003 as well. You also state "POV from the Universists is an obvious problem." You should note that in previous discussions on Wikipedia, the Universist Movement, the org representing Universism, has pledged not to edit the article. I imagine there are some Christians editing the Christianity article and that they may have a POV. I imagine there are some Republicans editing the GOP article and they may have a POV. We can't control our members but we can issue a statement explaining how Wikipedia works and encouraging them not to edit the article unless they are familiar with Wikipedia style and rules. As for your claim that there is "a dearth of independent verifiable evidence available from which to build a balanced view against which to weigh that POV" -- I think there is some video evidence floating around somewhere. Maybe an article too in a reputable source here or there. :-) Universist 11:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See how your source is the universist website? That's the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that page is a list of links to media websites or archives of media about UM. The problem is your unwillingness to do the most basic research. Like clicking on a web link to a newspaper. Universist 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, add some personal attacks. That really helps your case along - almost as much as the 400-odd unique Googles for Universism and Universist combined, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying, but Google currently shows ten-thousand hits[5] if both terms are used at once, and eighty-thousand for "universist" alone[6]. Though many of the hits are self-referential, 400 still seems off by a couple of orders of magnitude. Are you using additional search criteria? (To save time: Yes, I'm affiliated with Universism. Yes, this is my first edit. No, I'm not here to spam you with advocacy.) 64.236.245.243 21:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I think I see how you arrived at that number. If I Google Universism and keep paging forward, Google indeed shows 400-odd hits[7] before asking me if I want to view similar entries. However, if one searches for "The Brights"[8] (as an exact phrase) and pages forward in the same way, there are currently only 500-odd hits. Also note that "the brights" can refer to the headlights of a car, while "Universism" rarely refers to anything other than the movement in question. So if The Brights are notable because of their Google presence, Universism isn't far behind.64.236.245.243 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to the place where I said The Brights were notrable per Google references? This is about Universism not some other article. If you think The Brights should go you are free to nominate iot for deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say that, but you implied Universism's number of unique Google hits made it non-notable. The Brights is a similar group that has passed Wikipedia's test for notability with a similar number of unique hits, and it has an article that I imagine most Wikipedians would hesitate to delete. If unique hits are a metric of notability, either both articles should stay or both should go. If they aren't a metric of notability, why comment on how many Universism has? In any case, I'll bow out here in the interest of preserving both civility and the right margin of this page.64.236.245.243 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • "You should note that in previous discussions on Wikipedia, the Universist Movement, the org representing Universism, has pledged not to edit the article." Yeah, and we should also note that the Universism website has long essays about how entirely unfair it is that Wikipedia's editors (described in accusatory, prejudicial terms) have not allowed Universism to have its richly deserved article, along with the complete texts of the deleted articles. You might as well have an essay titled "Why no one has yet rid me of this troublesome priest (and where you can find him)". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not understand, should the prior deletion discussions on Wikipedia's archives be deleted as well? If not, then why should UM remove its response to that heated discussion, written contemporaneosly. The point of this discussion is that the old conflict is over. The last VfD even said reconsider in March 2006. Well here we are, and a year later UM has clearly established its significance. 164.111.21.141 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Ford Vox's being an effective self-publicist does not make his group notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Dpbsmith's postings in the aforementioned prior discussions about the Universism article. The charge of my being a self promoter is oft repeated, inaccurate, has nothing to do with the validity of the article, and is not appreciated. It is further evidence of this historical bias of which I am speaking. By the way Dpbsmith I suppose you will be starting a VfD of the articles on P.T. Barnum and Penn Jillette soon? Universist 12:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if it weren't for self-publicity, no one would ever have heard of Coca-Cola. The debate's about whether or not the media coverage satisfies Wikipedia notability guidelines. Could you comment on that?-ikkyu2 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. All the prior AfDs were legitimate. --Aaron 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • All the prior AfD's were legitimate? Should his vote even count if that's his justification? Where is the communication. Universist 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Aaron, the legitimacy of the prior AfD's wasn't disputed. This deletion review specifically asked you to consider whether new information meant that it was time to allow another article to be written. Could you comment on that question, please? -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Gladly. The authors and proponents of this article have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia process. Despite the fact that there is a standing agreement to revisit the issue in March 2006, this article has been continuously recreated over and over again despite a continual consensus to keep it deleted. In addition, the article's authors have shown a continuous inability to follow WP:NPOV, so recreating the article seems pointless regardless. Given all that, I find it not particularly compelling that they've managed to rack up just enough media mentions in the interim to make the most threadbare notability argument. My vote remains the same: Endorse closure and keep deleted. However, I do like Septentrionalis's idea below to declare the AfD decisive until September 2006. If the Universists can manage to stick by the agreement until then, the issue can be revisited with a clean slate. --Aaron 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how you can count the opinions of 6 wikipedians (one of whom is now on indefinite leave and one of whom now supports undeletion) as some sort of mandate that the issue is never mentioned again until March. And even if it were, are we really going to split hairs and argue over how the overall situation will be different from late February to early March? Yes, the Universists' consistent interest in the creation of such an article has proved problematic in the past; that is why I thought it best for someone who could not be considered an inclusionist by any stretch of the imagination to bring this to DRV. In any case, your assertions that they've garnered "just enough media mentions in the interim to make the most threadbare notability argument" is the most convincing case for a keep deleted I've yet seen. The argument, as I see it, revolves around where on the notability spectrum these media mentions lie. That's the discussion I'm looking for, not a rehashed argument from a year ago. Let's examine these media appearances and see what they really are. I'll readily admit not everything to appear on CNN is notable. -R. fiend 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your clarification! --ikkyu2 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist, and declare this AfD decisive for another six months. We could have had the AfD with less trouble than this. Septentrionalis 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Relist: I can't understand why people want to delete the article based on someone's opinions. The page is neither hateful nor crosses any boundaries. It would be a violation of free speech if people start deleting articles just because they don't like it--Vonrick 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC) This is Vonrick (talk · contribs)'s fourteenth edit.
• Undelete and Relist - If it's noteable, it should survive the relisting, and if it's not, it should get deleted again. If it's been being deleted without re-examination of the notability criterion, then it should be examined, no? Michael Ralston 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted. Nothing has changed about this non-notable "religion". The supposed references are still self-refs, there is nothing to make this thing notable except for the persistance of its member (yes, member. One.) User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How is US News and World Report a "self-reference"? Call it "a minor blurb of little consequence" if you must (I won't argue too firmly against that), but to call it a self-reference seems to indicate you haven't looked into this at all. And this isn't even a case where it was just the online edition or anything. This appeared in print, in a magazine with a circulation rivaling that of the most popular news magazines in the country. Maybe its appearance in various media has been because of the efforts of Ford Vox. But if that's the case, it's worked very well. And this is coming from someone described as one of wikipedia's "most radical deletionists". -R. fiend 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I originally supported deletion, but switched my vote to undeletion some time ago based on the New York Times publicity and other factors. They have now been on CNN. I'm not a Universist (and frankly, I'm tiredof having to say that every time this issue comes up for review). In fact, I find the Universist movement unappealing and problematic - but it's just ridiculous to keep this article out of Wikipedia on the basis of notability, which was the original justification for deletion. Like it or not (and I suspect it's a "not" for most of us), Universism is a lot more notable than many similar topics on Wikipedia. To keep it deleted is absolutely nothing more than grudge-motivated behavior and reflects quite poorly on Wikipedia. --Nat 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Notability is miniscule for "world religion" boldly announced. Verifiability sucks too. PR campaign does not count. No serious independent reviews. mikka (t) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "World religion" - can you find that phrase anywhere on the Universist website referring to Universism? You cannot. It is not there. We don't call it that. More importantly, Wikipedia has articles on new religious movements, not just major world religions. We do not claim to be a "world religion." We are a new religious movement. This is yet another vote by someone who simply doesn't like Universism. Let me save you all some time, if you want to hear from people who don't like Universism versus those who do and base your decision on that, you will overwhelmingly hear from the former. No contest. There are only 10,000 Universists and the only ones that know about this discussion are a few of them following a forum thread on our website. I don't know of any Universists in that forum thread that are long contributing Wikipedians. Since when is personal popularity of an idea among Wikipedians a factor in whether there should be an article? The notability for a new religious movement is established. Far more than most such new organizations. For a "world religion" - that is a straw man invented by mikkalai that even were it true has no bearing on whether there should be an article accurately describing us. Universist 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist at AfD. I haven't seen the content of this article so I won't be able to judge for sure until it's undeleted and then listed at AfD. It sounds like it maybe notable though, what with the newspaper citations given above. --Cyde Weys 06:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I've been participating in Internet-based communal ventures since the 1980s, so I've seen a lot of battles over community rules and regulations over the years: newgroup and rmgroup debates over Usenet groups, arguments over whether spamming sites should be universally blacklisted, arguments over the ethics of DoS attacks, and so on. So I claim at least Old Fart's privilege of deserving consideration when I say that re-deletion of the Universism article at this point would be one of the most petty and high-handed applications of procedures I've seen in an online community in two decades. The Church of Scientology is arguably a pure product of the most arrant self-promotion, but no one would for a moment claim that there should be no Scientology entry on Wikipedia. The Universist Movement has reached enough of a critical mass in the culture, it seems, that people might well come to Wikipedia looking for a brief neutral overview of the phenomenon as they might for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Church of the Subgenius (which has been in the newspapers lately as the result of a custody dispute, BTW). An article that meets POV criteria is appropriate in this case. --David Sewell 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I abstain because I am a Universist an inactive wikipedian. However, please allow me to comment. Some here have claimed Universism to be non-notable and have completely ignored its media coverage. For those people, I suggest reading the LA Times article(11/17/05) and reviewing the transcript of the Universist segment on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 (2/15/06) or watching the video of that segment. There also is an archive of media coverage on the universist website. Most of the listings contain links to the actual news sources. For those that don't, you can find them on google. --Mindbender 07:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Relist. Notability is not an issue. I am still concerned about POV, however I think it can be dealt with in the usual manner. -- Scott e^iπ 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is notability not an issue? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it is clearly notable. -- Scott e^iπ 11:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Previous AfD was valid, but there is substantial new information (namely, the media coverage) to consider. Perhaps it wasn't notable then, but we should re-evaluate whether it's notable now. If it is, POV issues can be fixed with re-writes. -- SCZenz 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. If threat of POV is an issue, then there's many articles out there we need to lose. The JPS 20:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist no reason for not having an article on a notable subject particularly given how many non-notable subjects we keep. Sam Spade 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. There is substantial new information that might have influenced the outcome of the debate. At least in my book, US News and World Report is substantial new information. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We already knew that there is a local group of Universists in Atlanta. What we don't have is evidence that there is much more to the movement than that.
• Keep deleted. Nothing new here, just a few more passing mentions. Gamaliel 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If I am reading the U. S. News article right, the chapter in Atlanta, which I believe is the center of the movement, is small enough to meet in a coffee shop. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There are several chapters, and Atlanta is not one of the largest. There are some good crowd shots of the Birmingham chapter in this video (.wmv alert) at 1:07 and 1:44. Chris Leland, a representative from Focus on the Family, comments on the movement at 2:35 - a fact I'm mentioning because it implies Universism is not below the radar of that influential group. 64.236.245.243 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Sufficient notability established for at the very least a revote on the matter, and at best a permanent recreation of the article. I see no benefit from blocking out all attempts to work on and improve an article that's in the "grey zone" between obviously noteworthy and obviously non-noteworthy; if it later turns out to be a very brief fad, we can very easily delete the article later, whereas if it becomes increasingly noteworthy over time (as many other Internet-based movements have of late), we'll have much better stuff to work with. And in the meantime, nobody will suffer horribly because we have an article on the topic, and a lot of readers will be benefited greatly by actually receiving information rather than a "deleted" notice when they search for information on this topic (as I did upon hearing a lot of mentions of it over the last few weeks). Whether the original AfD results were valid or not is moot, as this is a review of the recent overly hasty speedy-deletions, not of the original vote, which was in different enough circumstances (i.e. occurred prior to all media mentionings of Universism) to no longer apply. Personally, I find Universism to be a somewhat inane, New Agey, intellectually lazy, bullshit-propagating movement (which is why I expect it to explode in popularity, since all of those things are becoming increasingly popular in modern spiritual subcultures), but that doesn't make it any less noteworthy. Also, I'll gladly help with any POV issues that arise once this article is recreated; if we could do it for Otherkin and George W. Bush, we can surely do it here. -Silence 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)