Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement

Universist Movement

This page was deleted back in December 2004 at which time the Universist Movement consisted of not much more than a website created by Ford Vox. Since then the movement has grown to over 7000 members and has received significant mainstream media coverage. While Mr. Vox may or may not be notable at this time, Universism has become quite notable and is having a noticable impact in the American religious community. allan

• READ THE ARTICLE The article we are discussing: http://faithless.org/wikipedia.htm A suggested alternate article: http://www.universist.org/npovuniversistmovement.htm Universist 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete allan
  • User's first edit was March 9. RickK 06:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I have made several edits in the past couple of years, but I have not made any since August 2004 at which time I used the User Name arevich. As I do not frequently post to Wikipedia I had not realized that I had accidentally set up two user accounts on Wikipedia. I would welcome your help Rick on figuring out how to consolidate them. Allanrevich
• It's grown by that much in a couple months? Keep deleted. May reconsider if proof of these assertions is given, and if it does meet notability and verifibility standards. -R. fiend 03:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete The article was deleted in December for not being 'notable' enough. Then a week later Universism made The New York Times. That's irony. Allan's post is incorrect on status in December, it has grown steadily since November 2003 when the first group started in Birmingham, Alabama. Universism consisted of 5,000 members in December, but the news coverage hadn't started. Universist 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit was March 9. RickK 06:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted this was re-VfDed yesterday and was unanimously voted for deletion again. Undeletion should not be used to circumvent valid VfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Andrew, please read the comments by admin Geogre 02:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) at Talk:Universist Movement. It was at his suggestion that the article was placed here. Allan Revich
• Keep deleted. In the original VfD from December, the vote was about 30-4 in favor of deletion. It's highly unlikely that the movement's notibility and importance has grown that much in less than three months. Carrp | Talk 03:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Carrp a look at the original VfD shows that the vote was much less decisive then you acknowledge in your comment. It was actually closer to 36-31 in favour of deletion. I understand that many of the voters were anonymous or new, and as such were suspect as possible sock puppets, but the IP#s are all different so unless the sock puppet was Superman, it is far more likely that most of the votes were from sincere newbies rather than sock puppets. Allanrevich
    • Not true. There were only 5 valid Keep votes. All others were by anons or people who created User IDs for the sole purpose of voting on the VfD. RickK 06:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Please see the article's discussion page Andrew. The person who started this article (myself) and Allan are unrelated. It was a coincidince that I started the Universist Movement article the day after Allan's Universism article was deleted, which I did not know about. Most importantly, in reading your discussion of yesterday, it is clear that the article was deleted for incorrect reasons. "It's highly unlikely that the movement's notibility and importance has grown that much in less than three months." - do facts not matter to you at all? You could visit http://universist.org/news.htm and find out the truth. Universist 03:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, facts do matter. But so do policies. Please read Wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD. In particular, please note #4 "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." The notability, number of members, press coverage, etc. is not up for debate here. This article has been validly up for deletion twice now, including yesterday. There was overwhelming consensus to delete both times (again, including yesterday). As such, this article is a valid candidate for speedy deletion, as per overwhelming consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all, I abstain from voting because I am a member of the movement and I do not wish my bias to affect the outcome. However, I'd like you to check your facts. The article up for deletion is a new article; it is not reposting. The author of the second article did so without any prior knowledge of the first. mindbender
    • Andrew, please read the Wikipedia policies again until you understand them a bit better. Here is just a bit of what admins are expected to consider before deleting, Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it. When in doubt, don't delete. Allan Revich
      • What on earth does "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" mean? I marked the re-created article for speedy deletion as re-created deleted content, which is fully within policy. You removed the speedy delete notice claiming that the notability has since increased. I put the speedy delete notice back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Andrew, the statement that you ask about (What on earth does "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" mean?) is taken word-for-word from the Wikipedia Policy advice to Admins at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators! I think that I know what it means, but since you are the admin, it is much more important that you know what it means! Allanrevich
        • Well that's certainly interesting, as I did neither nominate it for deletion (it was BM the first time, Scott Burley the second time) not did I delete it (that was Rossami the first time, RickK the second time). False accusations are not appreciated here. Furthermore, I'm not an admin on Wikipedia, so you definitely need to get your facts straight. And, as a final note: you're the one who removed the speedy notice from the article, not to mention tossing obviously unfounded accusations around, and you're saying I don't understand Wikipedia policies? I sincerely hope for your sake that an apology is forthcoming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I do apologize for believing that you were an administrator. As for approriate comments in this forum, your comment above that, "I sincerely hope for your sake that an apology is forthcoming." sounds rather like a threat. Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words? And yes I do believe that you would benefit from a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. Arevich
      • So an article that was validly speedy-deleted yesterday was re-created today, less than 24 hours later, totally independent of and unrelated to the one yesterday? Hmm. That, my friend, is one amazing coincidence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • But coincidence it is. This whole thing rests on misunderstandings just like yours about that Starblind. There were never any sockpuppets in the original Universism VfD back in December! Universism has been significant since approximately last summer! As for policy, that is why Allan put it on the undelete page, this is how you get something undeleted - as per Geogre's instruction on the article's talk page. Universist 04:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • It is indeed a coincidence. However, I don't blame you for not believing it. If I were in your position, I'd find it rather hard to swallow as well. Maybe a comparison of the articles is in order? If the two parties are telling the truth and second author had no prior knowledge of the first, the articles themselves would likely be dissimilar in composition. - mindbender
        • To be honest, I don't think it's 100% a coincidence. Both people probably got the idea of doing an article after someone started a thread named something like "Why isn't there a Wikipedia article on Universism?" in a forum visited by many universists.--82.76.81.56 14:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • That is most likely the reason, and I can confirm that such a thread existed on a freethought forum prior this whole mess. But it's still a coincidence in that neither author had knowledge of the other's article. Only one article was posted on the forum, and that occurred yesterday (3/10). - mindbender
• Keep deleted. Recent overwhelming VfD vote, no indication that anything has changed since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. This movement is much more encyclopedic. --Ryan! | Talk 03:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators Allanrevich
• Undelete. I would like to see this article restored. In the original VfD for the previous article, I voted to delete, but that was before Universism got a significant mention in The New York Times (among other developments). The orginal issue was notability, and I think that Universism is now sufficiently notable to warrant a brief article. If Universism is denied an article based on notability, there are hundreds of articles that will need to be examined on the same grounds, including some I have edited myself. These guys have a chat scheduled with Richard Dawkins, for crying out loud. If the orginal VfD were today, I could no longer vote to delete with a straight face. --Nat 04:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment No vote yet. Please give the citation for the New York Times article, I'd like to read it. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The NYT piece wasn't "about" Universism; it was an op-ed piece about new religions and several of them were mentioned. Because Universism was mentioned in the lead and about 25% of the piece used Universism as an example, universists always describe this as the NYT piece "about" Universism. It is a bit in the vein of "any publicity is good publicity" because the actual content was slightly sarcastic. --BM 11:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment For the record, I've never stated that the NYT piece was "about" Universism. Clearly, it wasn't. If it were, I can't imagine how there could be any debate whatsoever. The article was about a number of trends in religious thought, but the fact remains that Universism was given a significant mention (25% of the piece by your own admission) in a prominent NYT article. This wasn't a mention on page 9 of the 10-page Hickville Herald. It was The New York Times, which is what made me change my vote, and what is now making me feel that some Wikipedia contributors (not necessarily yourself) may be behaving in a biased manner. Since then, there have also been feature appearances on national radio programs, etc. I think it's time to get over our cognitive dissonance about deleting this article the first time, and recognize that even if it didn't have a place on Wikipedia then, it does now. I changed my vote, because I'm not going to let my attachment to "being right" about the previous NfD bias me against this content. If anyone is opposing this article for that reason, I feel that they may not be working in the best interest of the project. --Nat 20:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine, but I'd like to read it for myself.
• Keep deleted. Legitimately deleted with an overwhelming consensus in a vote marred by a series of personal attacks by Universists. This will just be troll and sockpuppet bait like it was last time. This NYT article came up during the vote as well, and was presented as a significant news story about Universisn, which was a lie since it was an offhand, one or two sentence reference in a rambling multiple-page opinion essay. This 7000 member thing is nonsense too, as anyone who visits their webpage and can sign up as one of the 7000 strong. I signed up during the vote and I'm still on their mailing list (and can't get off!) and counted as part of their movement. Gamaliel 05:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I vote that the article be restored if for no other reason than the sake of knowledge. Those unfamiliar with the term will be interested in learning what the movement is about, and even if United Universism is still a fledgling movement, it ought to be referenced somewhere, and Wikipedia, the go-to site for relatively esoteric terms, is ideal for the task in my opinion.
  • Note: Unsigned vote, first and only contribution from this editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD vote. Anons and new users' votes are generally not counted. There were only five valid votes for keep in the December VfD. Somebody recreated the page, I have just speedy deleted it. Please note that, in the original VfD, Ford Vox counted anybody who filled out their form on their website as a member. Anybody can fill out a form, it doesn't make them a member of anything. I'd also like to point out to others who would like to recreate the article, that Ford Vox said in the original VfD vote that he would prefer there not be an article about Universism on Wikipedia because he would not be able to control the content. RickK 06:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, if the form you are talking about is the same one I'm familiar with, by filling it out, you affirm that you are a Universist. I should know, because Ford asked me to sign the form, and I refused. I was then asked to leave the Universist-only forum which existed at the time. I would not sign any form requiring me to affirm that I was a Universist (because I am not), but such a form does exist. I'm not aware of any other membership form, although I may be mistaken. If someone was not a Universist, why would they fill out a form which affirms (or even suggests) that they are one? I wouldn't, and I don't think any of Ford's membership would, either. I don't understand the logic of an argument which suggests that people who signed up as Universists aren't really Universists. --Nat 20:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. By the way. I put a lot of work into the original Universism article that was deleted in December to NPOV it, while it was on VfD. Ford Vox (User:Deist) and I went around several times during the week on that article and some other people were involved also. It turned out to be a waste of time because the article was deleted, which (of course) was fine with me. Ironically, in the VfD, Ford Vox ended up calling for the deletion of the article during the VfD vote, apparently because he realized he would not be to control the article if it was kept. However, I read on the Universist forum that he described the final state as a good neutral article (amusing, because he was complaining about it here). If this topic is going to be resurrected, I would greatly appreciate that the starting state be the one at the end of the *FIRST* VfD vote, so that we don't have to start from scratch with NPOV-ing it. --BM 11:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote yet. I want someone to give me a reference to the New York Times article so I can read it for myself. Valid deletion in process on December 2004. Would appear to be open-and-shut case of re-creation of material voted for deletion. In fact, it was not simply speedied, but went through VfD again on March 10th. What's bothering me though is the assertions of supporters that the religion has become notable since December. The second VfD discussion does not seem to discuss this. Supporters refer to "all the press coverage" but, oddly, the re-created article contains no references to any press coverage. Google News currently contains no hits on "Ford Vox" or "Universism" and one irrelevant hit on "Universist". I've read dismissive descriptions of the New York Times article by opponents. My library has a search service, which is currently down, that gives full-text access to the New York Times back to the late 1800s. When it comes up again I want to check out the article(s). So, please: the date on which the story appeared in the New York Times. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hopefully someone will give you an exact reference. But, IIRC, it was in the Sunday edition immediately following the week of the first VfD. I recall that Ford Vox (User:Deist) made a big point of going around crowing about what idiots we were for deleting the article as soon as the NYT piece came out, and there might even be something at the tail end of the old VfD about it. Come to think of it, he crowed on my Talk page, and you might see a link there. I seem to recall that a couple of weeks later NYT published a letter to the editor from Ford Vox about the piece, and he went around Wikipedia bragging about that too. --BM 14:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Here is the online link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/opinion/12horgan.html You have to pay now to read it but it will give you the date. --BM 14:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• P. S. Boston Globe archives have no references to "Universist" or "Universism" or "Ford Vox". Dpbsmith (talk) 14:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The universist website has a scanned-in copy of the NYT piece here. [1]. SlimVirgin 14:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. 1) There are many people following the Universism Movement. It's been presented on websites, newspapers, radio shows. Even if it wouldn't have been, encyclopedias aren't about what is popular or not. How many people will it take until you accept Universism as an article? 10000? 100000? 1000000? Are numbers the only aspect important to Wikipedia users or admins? 2) The article will only benefit wikipedia. We universists are not an evil cult of weirdos. We're rational people that are trying to make the world better. If you don't even support this, what do you support? In any case, I have seen many articles far more useless, that no one tries to VfD. I suspect many of people voting are christians that want to stop anything that contradicts their holy beliefs. 3) Stop using "it has been already rejected once" as an argument. Is a successful VfD equal to "article banned for EVAR"? This is what universists really dislike: people that have made a decision they're not willing to reconsider even if it could be wrong. And hurry up Rick and point out that I'm not registered or an old member or something like that, because I see that for you it's not the actual opinion or argument that matters, it's only the time that someone was registered on Wikipedia.--82.76.81.56 14:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Ford Vox started an article on Universism at the very same time that he started Universism. It clearly wasn't notable a week after it started, was it? If you're complaining that Universism isn't getting the benefit of the doubt, thank Ford Vox for being such an "insanely active promoter" (in the words of his supporters) that no one can distinguish the actual notability of Universism from the appearance of notability he goes to lengths to manufacture. 2) For someone who complains about ad hominem later, you sure are quick to play the religion card. You also make the mistake, common to many run-in voters that "makes the world better" == "encyclopedic". Even if it wasn't a POV opinion that Universism "makes the world better" (what movement has not claimed that about themselves?) it still doesn't amount to notability. 3) What point would there be in making a decision once if someone who didn't like the results could simply unilaterally force the decision to be "reconsidered" endlessly? Do you see this in the court system? Do you see the prosecution saying "Well, the jury found him not guilty, but we still think he's guilty, so we're going to try him again on the same charges?" That's a little thing called "double jeopardy". Likewise, an appeal can't be filed on the grounds that you just don't like the fact that a judgement went against you. 4) It's only your vote that is given less weight because you have only five edits. Your opinion and argument, like those of any Wikipedian, are given weight proportional to the understanding you show of Wikipedia's aims, practices, and rules. So if your argument about "Universism should get an article because we MAKE THE WORLD BETTER" is falling on deaf ears, perhaps you should blame ... the fact that it isn't a very good argument. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Feldspar, a little bit of honesty goes a long way. I have already said that I created the article on Universism without any prior knowledge that Ford Vox had written another article called Universist Movement. You might also take a closer look at both the mission statement of Wikipedia and the deletion policy until you actually understand it. Arevich
      • Just out of curiosity: are you under the impression that that works? Do you really think that the way to get your own way is to stride in and say "All right, you're the old hands, and I'm the newcomer, but I can already see that you're completely wrong in the way you're doing things. I have no practical experience but hey, I looked at your mission statement and your deletion policy and the way I interpret them means you should do this and this. If you disagree it means that you don't understand it, because there's no possible way that I could have given it a once-over and gotten a false impression over-influenced by what I wanted it to say"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, Antaeus, my main argument isn't "MAKE THE WORLD BETTER". I only used that because I really don't see what the objections to Universism are, apart from too low popularity, which shouldn't be a valid reason in an encyclopedia. So I assume there are people that simply don't like it's philosophy, and that being the reason they want to keep it deleted. When so many percents of the people are christians, it's safe to assume some of the voters are too. Oh, and I have edited wikipedia before. It seems it doesn't save the number of modifications for IPs for too long.--82.76.81.56 17:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I've looked at the VfD, as well as at the NYT article, the Talk page, and the comments made above, and I can't see any legitimate grounds for overturning the original vote. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems to me that there are agendas other than the best interests of Wikipedia evident in the voting against inclusion of Universism, and similar articles (e.g. Aldeism) that do not reflect Evangelical Christian dogma. Editors and administrators of the encyclopedia need to work much harder at elevating themselves above this type of prejudice and bias. Clearly there is significant interest in the inclusiveness of Wikipedia, and contrary to some postings here, the people writing the articles are not interested in self-promotion, only in providing people with access to ideas. Arevich
  • Comment Honestly, I think that's a bit ridiculous. As noted in my comments above, I support restoring the article (I have reconsidered my original vote to delete), but using a broad brush to accuse people of religious bias is not likely to be helpful. To the ears of most opponents and undecideds, such commentary sounds a lot like paranoia. If there is any bias, I don't think it is religious in nature. Instead, it is more likely that any bias stems from the desire to "be right" about the original deletion (amounting to an unwillingness to change one's position in the face of new evidence). As you know, such an attitude may be essential to the maintenance of religious faith, but it also transcends any ideological issue. It is a basic component of human psychology. --Nat 20:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Frankly, one also cannot overlook in this particular case a bias of "if they're so loudly, arrogantly wrong about so many things, what are the chances they're right about this one?" The Universists have badly damaged their own reputation here by swaggering in and loudly announcing "I've read your deletion policy and the way you're interpreting it is very different from how I would interpret it and the only possible explanation is, you're wrong! Yes, I, the newcomer, must know your own policies a lot better than you do, and I'm going to sneer condescendingly to you about it." Now, this evidence that quite a number of Universism's disciples are arrogant and obnoxious and fail to ever consider the possibility that they could be wrong is not proof that they are wrong about their own notability. But it's pretty good evidence for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Antaeus, perhaps you can explain how accusing "a number of Universism's disciples" of being "arrogant and obnoxious" makes your own argument any better? Arevich
      • I didn't say it did. Any other questions? Naturyl said "Gee, maybe Wikipedians are biased against letting the article be recreated because they think it would be like admitting they were wrong to delete it in the first place." I pointed out that there's another possibility: "Gee, maybe people are biased against letting the article be recreated because the people who are saying 'Trust my judgement that this movement is big and important and needs an article!' are showing poor judgement by swaggering in and saying 'I read your deletion policy and that means I now understand it better than you, and hey, I'm not just going to ask if I'm interpreting the policies of Wikipedia right, I'm going to insult you for not understanding it as well as I clearly do!'" As I said before, proof of your poor judgement in one area (social skills) does not constitute proof of your poor judgement in another area (realistic awareness of your own notability). But it sure doesn't help your case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't believe someone deleted the article already while this discussion is being carried out. Here it is for those who would like to know what they are voting about: http://www.faithless.org/wikipedia.htm Additionally here is the news page of the Universist Movement which describes its activities: http://universist.org/news.htm Universist 15:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have seen a couple of people above claim the NYT article is insignificant and just a passing mention of Universism. You can ask the author yourself: http://www.johnhorgan.org and he will tell you the article was about Universism. Or you can ask the NYT Editorial page, which printed Ford Vox's reply the following Sunday as the first letter: http://universist.org/newyorktimes.htm Also someone claimed that the NYT piece was discussed in the December VfD. It was not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Universism The piece was published after the VfD was over & posted on the dormant VfD talk page and the talk pages of several admins who championed deletion. And if you don't like the NYT try the Birmingham Weekly: http://universist.org/cover.htm Universist 16:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I said this came up during the vote, I simply forgot it came up almost immediately afterwards when it was posted to the talk pages of a number of users with rude, taunting messages like "Do you believe in irony?". Regardless, I don't think this is significant and we don't have to ask the author, we can read it ourselves as it's scanned in on your website. It's clearly not about Univerism, just mentions them very briefly as part of a larger, general trend. Gamaliel 18:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary section break so people can use section edit

• Undelete. This is borderline, but I'd say it's notable enough for an entry. They claim to have been mentioned by the BBC and Fox News, and they've been mentioned by the New York Times, albeit only used as an example of new religious movements. The page as it stood [2] was POV and would have to be heavily edited, but there seems no reason not to have an entry of some description. SlimVirgin 16:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I just noticed that somebody has once again created an article, this time a poorly written sub-stub. Surely the Wikipedia administrators can see by now that this type of activity is inevitable until a properly NPOV article is included in Wikipedia? I really do not understand why there is so much resistance to having an article about Universism. Honestly, I can think of no reasonable explanations for this resistance besides ego blindness or religious bias. Is an article about a new and growing movement really going to damage the integrity of Wikipedia in any way? Arevich
  • Comment In the interest of starting fresh, I have offered to write such an NPOV article. See Talk:Universist_Movement, near the bottom. --Nat 20:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete now they're notable. To Arevich: it's almost impossible to get the article undeleted once it went through VfD (even if it was a year ago). Probably because this page is attended only by hardcore deletionists. Grue 16:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's easy to get improper speedy deletions reversed here. It's hard to get VfD deletions reversed here because VfD deletions are the result of extensive discussion and the nature of the process is that very, very few of them are improper. Most people proposing undeletion of VfD-ed articles misunderstand the purpose of this page and seem to think that it is a chance to "get a second bite of the apple" and re-argue a case that has already been lost. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process, twice. New York Times article and Birmingham Weekly articles are indications that the religion is successfully getting some significant publicity, but neither article suggests that it has a significant number of adherents. In fact, neither addresses the status of the religion itself. The NYT article is indeed a conspicuous mention of Universism, and not just in passing. But the gist of it, as I read it, is that a) it's an opinion piece, b) the author is an acknowledged unbeliever who c) likes and is heartened by the Universist website but d) nevertheless has no plans to join. The personal criterion I will use if this comes up again is that I want to see Google News searches on "Ford Vox" or "Universism" or "Universist" yield relevant hits that are news, not editorial or letters, and that clearly indicate that reporters or parties not affiliated with the Universists recognize it has being of significant size or importance. Supporters, please do not imply that resistance to this article is the result of religious bias; that will not help your cause. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith, the criterion you proffer is absurd. Do you want me to go through Wikipedia and give you a list of religious groups without current articles on Google News? Universist 17:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • • Sure. Please: give me a list of three American denominations that a) are active in the present day, and that b) you think most Wikipedians will accept as having encyclopedic notability, with c) no Google News hits. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) P. S. To save you time... you don't need to check out Ethical Culture, the Millerites, or the Doukhobors. See below.
    • Even if you did so, it would be irrelevant. You probably wont find many current news articles on, say, the Quakers, but it wouldn't much matter because they have historical notability. However, your claim is that Universism has exploded in popularity since the valid VfD in December. If that were true, there would be at least some press coverage attesting to that fact. A religious group growing by leaps and bounds in the course of a few short months would be all over the news if it were true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • The Quakers, eh? Results 1 - 20 of 20 for religious-society-of-friends There are many more for Quaker, but it's too hard to figure out how to sort out the oatmeal and the football teams and the motor oil and so forth. The Quaker relief agency: Results 1 - 37 of 37 for AFSC. The Moonies: results 1 - 22 of 22 for unification-church. How about Ethical Culture, which is maybe a little sorta-kinda-like Universism? How come we don't have an article on it? Oh, well, see Felix Adler... anyway, Results 1 - 18 of 18 for Ethical-Culture, almost all relevant. Results 1 - 15 of 15 for American-Atheists. Even Results 1 - 2 of 2 for doukhobors. Results 1 - 2 of 2 for millerites. Results 1 - 1 of 1 for plymouth-brethren.
• Keep deleted. Neither websites nor self-created, self-promoted "movements" are encyclopedic. BCorr|Брайен 18:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, successful self-created, self-promoted movements are highly encyclopedic once they are successful. Getting one favorable mention in one New York Times opinion piece a promotional achievement of sorts. If, as I fancy, it was the result of a deliberate promotional effort, it was well done. However, Wikipedia's decision should be made on the basis of present success, not on the basis of arguments, however convincing, for future success. We're not a news outlet and we have no interest in scooping the world or being the first to report "memes on the rise." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is some total speculation on how the NYT article came about: the Harvard Religions Project includes a page on its web site about new religions, and the NYT writer got the reference to Universism from there, along with a couple of the others that he wrote about. He mentions the Harvard project in the article. Where did the Harvard Religions Project hear about Universism? Bet you a quarter: from Wikipedia. --BM 19:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh my God BM you must be right! It must be that, it couldn't be because John Horgan had an online guest chat with the Universist Movement. He even called Universism's founder a "bright young man." http://universist.org/johnhorgan.htm You should not be deleting things you don't even take the time to research. By the way, here are several religious movement articles that need to be deleted because they aren't currently in Google News: Discordianism, Brownsville Revival, Atherius Society, Adidam, Branhamism, Chen Tao, Elan Vital (nothing about the movement), Instititute of Noetic Sciences (article Noetic), Konkokyo. Would you like some more? Universist 19:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ford (it is you, right? if not, its interesting that Universism attracts different people with Ford's distinctive, ahem, charm), as I said, it was speculation. Do you know how Horgan heard of Universism? As for some of the other movements you mention, if you think they don't merit articles in the Wikipedia, by all means nominate them for deletion. --BM 23:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • All of those articles and Universism obviously belong in Wikipedia, that is the point, to demonstrate the absurdity of the "Google News" criterion. Universist 02:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Note: Nobody ever said that being on Google News was the de facto standard for getting a wikipedia article. I'd be surprised if you found much about Jack Benny, Agatha Christie, or Chester A Arthur on Google news at the moment either. Instead, the position of the universists through this debate has been primarily that Universism has absolutely exploded in popularity and membership since the first VfD vote in December, thus rendering the December deletion consensus ruling irrelevant. That's where Google News comes in: if this is a huge new movement that's sweeping the nation and getting all this press, why doesn't Google news have anything to say about it? With no independent news sources reporting on it, we must question its truth. [Not to mention that all this growth, even if proved, would not invalidate the second valid deletion consensus from two days ago] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. As I said previously in one of my replies, I abstain from voting because I am a member of the movement and I do not wish my bias to affect the outcome. All I ask is that the article is considered fairly. Last time many Universists, including myself, came here in a rush to defend Universism without knowing much or anything about Wiki policies. I humbly make my plea that you base your decisions not on past actions of individuals but on the relevancy of Universism itself to Wikipedia. If you don't think it's relevant, I respect your judgment. All I can ask is that you give it the proper consideration. I hope any past misunderstandings can be forgiven. - mindbender
  • Comment While I appreciate your reasonable tone (and the very sensible decision not to vote due to bias), your post touches strongly on one of the central misconceptions of this whole debate: the notability of the movement is not being questioned or voted on here. The undeletion process is not a place to debate notability, it's a place to consider the original VfDs. In the case of this article, it was validly VfDed by consensus twice, including as recently as two days ago. Although it might be possible to claim that the status of the organisation has changed since December (though the lack of news coverage suggests otherwise), I think it will be virtually impossible to convince anyone that the status of the organisation has changed significantly since it was last validly VfDed by consensus two days ago! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Does it make any difference that the original VfD was resolved on the basis of notability (or lack thereof)? If that fact doesn't matter, I don't suppose that much can be done. However, many opponents now appear to essentially concede the issue of notability, thereby implicitly conceding that the reason for the original deletion is no longer valid. Incidentally, that's why I changed my vote - I believe strongly in letting the facts and evidence dictate one's beliefs and behavior. If there is no longer a wide consensus that the reason for keeping an article out of Wikipedia is valid, can a previous VfD serve to keep the article out anyway? If so, maybe the VfD process needs to be looked it, because such a policy would essentially ban articles from Wikipedia indefinitely, regardless of the current validity of the criteria for the original deletion. --Nat 21:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment VfDed articles are considered again after a certain amount of time has passed. In this case, the original article was VfDed in December. Two days ago the issue was visited again on VfD, and again deleted, this time with unanimous consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment That was a speedy delete Andrew, not the same thing. Of the five people who voted, four of them cited sock-puppets. There were and are no sock-puppets! The fifth voter said none of the problems in the first article were corrected. I never saw the article so I don't know. But this article is encyclopedic and provides an excellent starting point for Wikipedia: http://faithless.org/wikipedia.htm If there is one thing that all entries on the Votes for Undeletion page share, is that they were all once deleted. That you keep raising the fact that Universism was once deleted as an article as the primary justification for keeping it deleted is very weak. This conversation is about why it should be undeleted. Universist 00:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Ford, the faithless.org article is the text of the Wikipedia article that was deleted at the end of the VfD. I was the primary author of most of that text. I'm so flattered. At the time, as I recall, you were telling me how I had completely misunderstood Universism. --BM 01:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • It is not fair to portray it that way. For one, no one was paying attention to the evolution of the article during the VfD and what the article looked like the instant it was deleted. The entire debate was about sock-puppets and the notability of Universism. Maybe 5% or less of the discussion was about the fact that the original article was kind of POV. For another, this new article is rewritten from yours. Here's yours: http://faithless.org/bm.htm and let us not forget your original effort, just prior to your initiating the VfD in December: http://faithless.org/bmoriginal.htm ...with all the "would appears" and "claims" your opinion was obvious. Universist 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• EXTREMELY IMPORTANT UPDATE I have located a thread on the Universist forum practically begging their members to sway this vote through sockpuppet actions. The URL is http://www.faithless.org/community/index.php?showtopic=2630 Note the following direct quotes "If you do not have an account on Wikipedia, create one before voting!" Also, apparently Vox is sending email to forum members encouraging them to come here and vote. We've already seen some sockpuppet activity on this vote (for example, the unsigned vote above), now we know where it's coming from. I urge wikipedians to be extremely wary of sockpuppet activity on this issue. If in doubt, check editing history. More updates as available. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also check out this charming account from Ford Vox on why the original article was deleted (in Fordland) and how to rename future Universism articles on Wikipedia to keep them from being detected: http://www.faithless.org/community/index.php?showtopic=2512 Hey, did you know that it was a single teenager who deleted the article? Silly me, I thought it was over thirty Wikipedians, some of whom are definitely further from our teenage years than we like to contemplate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you mean "you have located" like it's some sort of daring spelunking into the secret depths of the Universist caves... I posted that very link on Jimbo's talk page early today. That link clearly states at the top that it's for Wikipedia users only. It says "new accounts and accounts without prior activity on Wikipedia carry very little weight with Wikipedia's administrators. I do not think it is worth your while if you are not already a Wikipedia user to participate." Universist 01:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Just for clarification, does the above really constitute sockpuppet activity? I was under the impression that sockpuppets are aliases created by a single user for deceptive purposes. If that is so, the Universist forum members are not sockpuppets, they are simply non-Wikipedians who are being encouraged to sway a Wikipedia vote. I agree that such behavior is not ideal, but should it be considered "sockpuppet activity?" Also, I seem to recall seeing other threads in which Ford discourages people from creating Wikipedia accounts just to sway the vote, due to his recognition that this will harm rather than help. Maybe he or his representatives can post links to such threads. All in all, though, I would agree with anyone who feels that the Universists have gone about this all wrong since the start. Clearly, they have. They shouldn't have tried to rig the vote with newbies last time, and they shouldn't have gotten hostile. These actions were clearly (and understandably) off-putting to many influential Wikipedians. However, none of that is particularly relevant to the desirability of the article itself. --Nat 00:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Call it "sockpuppeting" or call it "creamed-corn monkey applesauce", I don't care. But "creating Wikipedia accounts to sway a vote" is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy, not to mention pointless as such votes simply do not count. Also, I would say that "creating Wikipedia accounts to sway a vote" does fit most people's definition of what a sockpuppet is, even if the new accounts technically might have different IP addresses, etc. Pretty much anywhere you go, online or off, tampering with a voting process is considered a very, very bad thing to do, and the penalties for it tend to be harsh. Here on Wikipedia, at the very least, use of sock puppets can have the effect of creating a bad reputation for the article in question, and might lead those who are "on the fence" about an issue to vote delete as a result. The first VfD on thisarticle in December had a huge number of sockpuppets, and I have no doubt that this left a bad taste in the mouths of the users who are now forced to vote on it again. Unfortunately, the Universist's tactics have not change, and here we see it evidenced in a forum thread (at least one might hope they'd do such things in private so we couldn't find it so easily). This message is getting far too long, so I'll sum it up. "Creating Wikipedia accounts to sway a vote" = "sockpuppets" (by most people's definition. "Creating Wikipedia accounts to sway a vote" is a bad thing. "Creating Wikipedia accounts to sway a vote" doesn't work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, they aren't technically sock-puppets, which are multiple accounts created by a single user. But on Wikipedia, that term is sometimes used also to refer to new users that materialize to participate in a vote -- especially if their appearance is orchestrated by someone trying to determine the outcome of the vote. It may seem offensive to a new member to be labelled a sock-puppet; but unfortunately their accounts are often indistinguishable from actual sock-puppets It is of course not very welcoming to label a real person a "sock-puppet". On the other hand, imagine how you would feel if you were working on a project, and a bunch of new people suddenly arrived to vote on a issue, claiming to have a superior understanding to existing members of your project's aims and policies, and demanding the same degree of say in determining those as the people who had been actively involved in the project for some time. This is a fairly frequent occurence of VfD, and administrators therefore have wide latitude to decide what weight to give votes. --BM 01:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Andrew and BM, I do see your point. Accordingly, let's call them "virtual sockpuppets," if you will. Be that as it may, I did find the material I mentioned earlier. In the thread Andrew links to, you will see that in post #12, the "virtual sockpuppeting" is called for by the user known as Aldeism, rather than by by Ford Vox. In that post, Aldeism states: "If you do not have an account on Wikipedia, create one before voting!" However, in post #14 of the same thread, Ford Vox replies to Aldeism's post by stating: "New accounts and accounts without prior activity on Wikipedia carry very little weight with Wikipedia's administrators. I do not think it is worth your while if you are not already a Wikipedia user to participate." Thus, I think it is clearly somewhat inaccurate to assert that Universism is calling for sockpuppet activity. Rather, an independent user at the Faithless Community forum (which is affiliated with Universism but not directly representative of it) has called for such activity. To my knowledge, the user in question (Aldeism) is not a member of the Universist leadership, and the Director of Universism himself has expressly discouraged sockpuppet activity in response to this user's suggestion. Personally, I'm only interested in the facts, so I hope this is helpful in regard to clarifying the situation. If I have mispercieved or misstated anything, please correct me. For the record, I do totally understand the objection to people coming in for two hours and telling established users how to run Wikipedia. As the administrator of several large community sites, I've been placed in that position myself, and it is plenty irritating. --Nat 02:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Response: Nat, you are quite correct that I am neither an administrator of, nor a member of the Universist Movement. However, in previous posts here I am taken to task for ascribing dubious motives to those arguing against undeletion. Therefore I am a bit discouraged that some editors are willing to ascribe unethical motives to me. Wikipedia places no value on anonymous voters. I am not certain of the wisdom of that policy, but it is the policy of Wikipedia and was arrived at by a very democratic process which I respect. My quoted comment "If you do not have an account on Wikipedia, create one before voting" is taken out of context to attempt to sway this vote by painting me as advocating an unethical activity which I most certainly do not. If you read the entire thread on the Universist forum, you will note that I advise readers that the votes of existing Wikipedia editors carry more weight than those of new editors. I do not advise anybody to create more than one account! Deliberately voting under more than one name is fraudulent and unethical and is quite rightly frowned upon by the entire Wikipedia community. However, there is nothing unethical about attempting to sway the opinion of potential voters. In fact that is the purpose of discussions such as this one. This is why I feel compelled to respond to allegations about what my intent might be. As for my perceptions of religious bias, I must in all honesty stand by them as they are my honest perceptions. Do I know with certainty that such bias exists? No I do not. I suspect that they do, but I will not accuse any editor directly of acting on such biases. Neither should other editors (Antaeus, Andrew) be so ready to accuse me of acting dishonestly. Arevich
• I also want to see the Universism page restored as I am a Universist all freethinkers are encouraged to join. I use Wikipedia very frequently and find it a very valuable information tool. Many people are leaving faith based religons and Universism is a congregation place for such people to share their ideals, whether they be Atheist, Dieists, Pantheists, Agnostics or Trancendentalists. Or any combination thereof. Please condider putting the Universist page back up. Thank you for your consideraton. Blackstar This comment from Bladisaster (talk · contribs), whose sole edit this is.
  • Word to the wise: These kind of comments don't help. Wikipedia doesn't care how good or bad Universism is. It doesn't care whether Universism will cure cancer or cause it. It doesn't care about people "sharing their ideas," daisies growing in a field, shiny happy people, or anything else of that nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It only cares whether or not the article is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in the project. I feel that it is. Others disagree, but the merits or demerits of Universism itself are not the issue. I want the article restored, and that isn't going to be helped by well-meaning commentary from people who do not understand Wikipedia and its purpose. I'm not trying to dump on you, I'm just letting you know that unless you understand what Wikipedia is about and what it is aiming for, your comments won't do much to to get the article restored. In fact, they are more likely to convince Wikipedia regulars even more firmly that Universists don't care about Wikipedia, they just want the article back because they are "true believers." I am not a Universist. I want the article back to benefit Wikipedia, so it is in my interest to point out that comments about how great Universism is are not helpful. --Nat 02:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT UPDATE If it is indeed true that this was featured in the New York Times, Fox News, the BBC, then I would vote 'keep' on a VfD myself. This is not a decree, just a personal opinion. Possibly the pre-NYT VfD was valid, but further press coverage has now changed the state of the world such that an article is warranted. I should not that I have not looked at the VfU page, so perhaps there is further information of which I am not aware. I'm just saying that in general, something that has gotten major press coverage is almost certainly worth at least a stub.--Jimbo Wales 01:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Universism_article

As this is true, http://universist.org/news.htm - I agree with the founder of Wikipedia on this one. Universist 02:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, it looks like my opinion coincides with Jimbo's almost verbatim. Well, that's certainly gratifying on a personal level! I do wish that Jimbo had looked at VfU just to get all of the available facts before making a statement, but his schedule probably forbids it. With Jimbo's endorsement of a new article added to all of the other arguments, I find it difficult to imagine how the opposition will maintain their position, but if they feel justified in doing so, I would encourage them to put forth their best arguments. As Voltaire has (allegedly) said, "I need not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If, after hearing Jimbo's opinion, people still oppose a Universism article, I (for one) will be happy to hear their arguments. I suspect that they will need to be quite a bit more persuasive than they would have needed to be before Jimbo's appearance. --Nat 02:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note as has already been mentioned, "featured in the New York Times" is at best an exaggeration, bordering on outright distruth. A more accurate way to put it would be "mentioned [somewhat sarcastically] in an op-ed piece in the New York Times". I have not looked into the Fox News or BBC claims, but I'm guessing they're similar. In any case, being mentioned in passing in even a major newspaper has never been considered as a de facto standard for inclusion, either. If you've ever held the New York Times in your hands (especially the Sunday edition, which this was) you know: it's huge. Do you have any idea how many people are mentioned in there every single day? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: As has already been mentioned, roughly 25% of the NYT op-ed was focused on Universism. Frankly, if that isn't good enough, I don't what is. This really confuses me, and it makes me happy that you have apparently never seen some of the articles I've contributed. If something that is given attention by the NYT, Fox, the BBC, and other media isn't notable enough, I think about half of my contributions need to be speedied. I know I'm taking a risk of exactly that happening by saying this, but honestly, the facts are more important to me. I'm silly like that, as is evidenced by the fact that I'm not even a Universist. In fact, I had a falling out with Ford quite some time ago. Frankly, the man probably wouldn't give me the time of day. On a personal note, we're two leading freethinkers that live in close proximity to each other and have no plans to meet, even though Ford does meetups on a regular basis. Yet, simply because of my silly disposition toward fairness and a fact-based approach, here I am putting my reputation and even my own articles on the line just to see Wikipedia get an article it ought to have. Really, do you see where I'm coming from at all? --Nat 03:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary section break so people can use section edit

• Keep deleted. I did explain that objections about the speedy deletion of the article be taken up here, as it is, essentially, the December VfD that is being contested and not the validity of the speedy. That said, my feeling in December was that this is a "religious movement" that is designed more to garner press than to change religion. The theology is old wine in new skins, it seems to me, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Religious movements, like slang terms, need to either create a significant change (and I would like to see evidence of that) or survive for a measure of time before they become the sorts of things that need to be looked up in encyclopedias. I find the press reports unconvincing at this point, because it's easy enough for Sollog, for example, to get mentioned negatively (or as an oddity) in several places and easy for a "Webhead" or "Circuits" column to say, "There are even people starting new religions in cyberspace, such as Universism": those don't amount to testimonials by those papers or journals to the spread, strength, or significance of the movement. Anyway, that's my feeling. Geogre 02:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, the percieved merits of Universism are not the issue. The issue is whether or not the article is encyclopedic, and therefore deserves a place on Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales and I (among others) feel that it is. Do you feel otherwise? If so, please explain why rather than expressing your personal opinion of Universism itself. --Nat 02:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You need to re-read the vote, as he already explained that: "Religious movements, like slang terms, need to either create a significant change (and I would like to see evidence of that) or survive for a measure of time before they become the sorts of things that need to be looked up in encyclopedias" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind<;/FONT> 02:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Response: OK, so we know George's opinion, as well as your own. Your opinions are consistent with your votes. Upon reconsideration, I do agree that the comment you quoted does in fact address the issue of whether or not the article is encyclopedic, so I apologize to George for suggesting otherwise. Still, I'll be waiting to hear any opponents address the 800-pound gorilla in the room - the statement of Jimbo Wales. I understand that his word is not necessarily law, but we at least need to acknowledge that he has clearly sided with those in favor of undeleting or re-creating this article. I don't think that it would be intellectually honest for the opposition to simply ignore the issue of Jimbo. --Nat 03:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Jimbo stated that his comment was based on the media attention, such as the New York Times article. As I pointed out above, the nature of the mention in the article article was stretched well past exaggeration. At the very least, I would want to have Jimbo actually review the article in question, as well as the arguments presented here in this VfU, before weiging it heavily. In my opinion, Jimbo was influenced by exaggerations and half-truths, and there's plenty of information about this issue that he doesn't (yet) have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Since there are no solid-reseach publications, the article would be original research. Mikkalai 03:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That is an extremely specious argument. Never before has the article been associated with "original research," and I think that even its opponents will concede that such an assertion is easily dismissed. I would advise reading the article you link to, which explains the criteria for original research. I fail to see how an article on Universism qualifies, especially if such an article were written by an NPOV third party such as myself. --Nat 03:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, correctly points out that the media Universism has received warrants an article on the subject. Whenever a peer-reviewed Journal of Philosophy gets around to publishing an article is irrelevant. Universist 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Jimbo stated that his comment was based on the media attention, such as the New York Times article. As I pointed out above, the nature of the mention in the article article was stretched well past exaggeration. At the very least, I would want to have Jimbo actually review the article in question, as well as the arguments presented here in this VfU, before weiging it heavily. In my opinion, Jimbo was influenced by exaggerations and half-truths, and there's plenty of information about this issue that he doesn't (yet) have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Exagerration? As I stated, the author of the article, whom I have corresponded with, knew what he was doing, ie, introducing Universism in the New York Times (albeit in the course of making his point). You can ask him yourself. http://www.johnhorgan.org ...Additionally, the paper's readers have something to say about it: http://universist.org/newyorktimes.htm ...and the New York Times has something to say about it, they published the article on a Sunday and the Universist reply first on the Editorial page the following Sunday. If the article didn't concern Universism primarily, why did they put the Director's letter first? Universist 04:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Whether or not this tangental mention in a Times article amounts to sufficient notability is a matter of opinion. To any unbiased observer, however, the article is clearly not about Universism. Gamaliel 04:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Point 1. The author thinks it is. Point 2. We have lots of comments from the article's readers who think it is. People who had never heard of Universism before - therefore, objective. You however were colored by the previous VfD you participated in before you read it - not objective. Point 3, the article is about the author's opinion, and his opinion concerns Universism. Additionally, he meant to introduce Universism to "the world" via the Times, and he did, along with genuine criticism as is customary in the Times. You don't get fluff pieces as the main Op-Ed on a Sunday. Universist 04:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, and as I mentioned, I would have preferred that Jimbo had read this VfU before weighing in. However, it's not too late. Would you be willing to join me in requesting that Jimbo do just that? Would you co-sponsor with me a request to Jimbo to that effect? If so, we can put something on his talk page as soon as you like. --Nat 03:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Jimbo isn't the 800-pound gorilla in the room. If he did vote, he would presumably review all the facts, the previous VfD's, and read this discussion. He hadn't done any of those when he made the comment on his talk page. Even if he did, it is only his opinion. The convention on Wikipedia is that in disputes, he gets to decide, if he wants. Jimbo is respected and people listen to what he says. But this isn't a Jimbo cult, and people don't immediately change their minds to conform to his point of view whenever he lets a pearl of wisdom drop from his mouth. If you look around, you will find many votes where Jimbo expressed his view and his side of the debate did not become the consensus. Even when Jimbo invokes his status as God-King, everybody doesn't immediately change their minds to conform to his view; they simply acquiesce and stop pressing their own views, for the sake of resolving the dispute and moving on. In this case, Jimbo hasn't even voted, and he certainly hasn't invoked his God-King status. If he votes, it will just be +1 for his point of view. --BM 14:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, so who wants to co-endorse a request that Jimbo look at this? --Nat 17:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I have nothing in particular to add to the discussion, but Universist's spamming of user talk pages brought this to my attention. This seems like something we should have an article on. - Calmypal 04:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I got a sneaking suspicion someone was contacting the parties who voted against it in the December VfD so I figured I would notify those who voted for it that the issue is open. If that is considered spam I will stop, that is news to me. I have only being doing it for the past few minutes. Universist 04:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no problem, really. That's the best word I had for the seemingly indiscriminate direct advertisement of this discussion. Imagine this:

Undelete. I have nothing in particular to add to the discussion, but Universist's seemingly indiscriminate direct advertisement of this discussion on user talk pages brought this to my attention. This seems like something we should have an article on. - Calmypal 04:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Doesn't sound so good, does it? ;-D - Calmypal 04:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Universist 04:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very recently VfDed. Therefore, keep deleted. Somebody may wish to apply for undeletion later. (Incidentally, the reasons given above don't look persuasive to me.) -- Hoary 04:33, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  • "Very recently VfDed. Therefore," I love it. Universist 04:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ford, you've got to calm down, man. I'm on the case. I'm an established Wikipedia contributor, a non-Universist, and an individual with a proven record of NPOV edits. In contrast, although you are a much more accomplished individual than myself overall, you are essentially toilet paper in the eyes of many of these folks. That's why you need to chill, as a service to both yourself and Wikipedia. What I mean by that is the fact that Wikipedia really ought to have this article. Let the content stand on its own merits. If it didn't have merits, I wouldn't be risking my reputation (and even my own articles) to defend it. My independent NPOV opinion is that the article is worth having, so let me help. Sniping comments from Universist leaders will accomplish nothing, except perhaps to sway a few more votes against us. Instead of pursuing that course, let's see how the opposition responds to my invitation to have Jimbo review this VfU page. So far, they have not been able to muster a response. If the opposition is sincere, they will agree to join me in posting a bi-lateral request that Jimbo review this page. If they refuse, it indicates that they don't think their arguments can stand up to review. This is still looking very promising. Don't lose "faith," oh faithless one. ;) --Nat 05:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok I'll take my pill. Universist 05:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You know, "Nat", old buddy, old pal, I don't really like having you put words I never said in my mouth any more than I like Ford and Universist and all the regular run-ins putting words in my mouth. The issue to me is not whether Ford is essentially "toilet paper" in my eyes -- a straw man I find condescending. The issue is whether the actual importance of Universism can be reliably separated from Ford's overwhelming sense of importance. Who's standing in the way of that process? You guessed it! And guess what? Fawning comments from a supposedly neutral party about "you are a much more accomplished individual than myself" don't reassure me that the judgement of "Wikipedia really ought to have this article" is based on facts rather than on ego. Your insulting judgement that Wikipedians are making this judgement based on thinking Ford Vox "toilet paper" really goes against your own credibility. It has nothing to do with thinking Ford Vox valueless or worthless or disposable; it has everything to do with it being nearly impossible to get the true facts with Ford distorting every fact he can: "mentioned in an NYT op-ed piece" becomes "featured in the NYT"; over thirty Wikipedians voting to delete the original Universism article becomes "the teenager who deleted it" -- and yes, in case you were wondering, turning "we can't get an accurate, fact-based assessment of Universism's importance when we're dealing with such rabid promotion" into "Wikipedians aren't interested in facts, they just think you're toilet paper" really doesn't do wonders for your claims of credibility. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, well, I knew it would happen eventually. I am being accused of NPOV bias. Not a problem. I am more than happy to let my arguments on this page as well as my record of contributions speak for themselves in that regard. It's clear that you mistrust Ford deeply, and it also now clear that you mistrust me as well, at least to some extent. That's fine, of course -- it is your right to form your own opinion. However, if you have any plans to accuse Ford or anyone else of condescending or rude comments, I think that you should consider the tone of your entry above. "Old buddy, old pal?" Frankly, I don't see the value in adopting such a tone. I think that this is clear evidence of your emotional investment in keeping the article out. --Nat 05:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, let your record speak for itself. I think the complete cessation of activity between the time the previous VfD ended and the time new Universism articles popped up speaks with particular eloquence. If you want to take my irritation at this point as "clear evidence of your emotional investment in keeping the article out", I can't stop you -- any more than I can stop anyone from making smarmy comments about "read the deletion policy until you understand it" and "this article is being deleted because it conflicts with Wikipedia's evangelical Christian bias." I can't stop you from coming up with your own private conspiracy theories about why Wikipedians are voting the way they're voting. But what I can do is announce, very loudly and clearly, that you do not speak for Wikipedia, and definitely not for me. Go peddle your "you are toilet paper in their eyes, Ford Vox" somewhere else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • If you think that everyone who feels this article deserves a place on Wikipedia is a shill for Universism, you're inventing some conspiracy theories of you own. Think what you want, though. Your mind is made up, so don't let me confuse you with the facts. --Nat 04:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Maver1ck 09:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article listed at faithless.org isn't great, but it's not terrible. The movement doesn't seem huge, but any news in the media always creates a bit more interest in these things. We have articles on less notable things. The call to vote on the message board seemed in approximate good faith, as not everyone knows that users created just to vote are not allowed. So long as we don't count them, I wouldn't use that as a reason to keep deleted. — Asbestos | Talk 13:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, I find the lengthy discussion above lacking of solid and NPOV arguments for reinstating the article. Radiant! 19:02, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant! is a member of the "Extreme Deletion Squad," a group of Wikipedians who do not seem to understand the potential of Wikipedia or even what it's about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EAD. He writes on his user page "the only good Pedia is an Empty Pedia." Universist 22:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would indeed encourage everyone undecided on this issue to visit that page. Here's a fun little game you can play; see if you can find the following words somewhere on that page: This page is satire, and we must point this out to the humor impaired as it does not represent any official or unofficial Wikipedia policy, past or present. Then decide for yourself if Universist was, perhaps, being just the tiniest bit deceptive in proclaiming what Radiant's membership in the EAD really shows. Hmmmm, although I should perhaps assume good faith and just believe that, rather than trying to smear an opponent, Universist just somehow entirely missed the very first sentence of the EAD. So, yes, I would definitely recommend visiting that page there, looking at it with your own eyes, and comparing it with Universist's description of "a group of Wikipedians who do not seem to understand the potential of Wikipedia or even what it's about". See whether you feel like taking Universist's claims at face value, or giving them the benefit of the doubt, after that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems like the pill wore off. Might want to take another one. --BM 22:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • People who publicly identify themselves with factions—jokingly, or not—invite this sort of misunderstanding—ingenuous or not. Dpbsmith (talk), Member, AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, AMW 00:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's any sign at all of a misunderstanding. The page talks about Extreme Article Deletion as a sport, after it clearly announces itself to be satire. Universist trumpeted one while making no mention of the other. I don't see "misunderstanding" there, I see a deliberate attempt to distort things by taking them out of context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: After reading this discussion thoroughly, I decided it might be a good idea to do the same with as many of the Wikipedia policy pages as I could wrap my head around at one time. (1.) Though my reason for suggesting to readers of the Universist forum that they create an account on Wikipedia, rather than vote anonymously was intended to prevent abuse on Wikipedia, I did find the reference that suggests that accounts created solely for the purpose of voting on a particular issue is consiered by Wikipedia to be a form of abuse. I'm not sure that I agree with that assessement, but it is there for all to see, was arrived at fairly, and therefore I am bound to accept it. On that matter I was wrong. I appologize. (2.) On the other hand, the article Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is quite clear about the following:

1. Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
3. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
4. When in doubt, don't delete.

and the article Deletion_policy seems to indicate that pages like the one on Universism should not be deleted because it does not fit any of the reasons listed. e.g. Once written in a proper NPOV (no more than one reference to the founder), it could not be considered as a vanity page. The article on Deletion Policy also sets the bar fairly low regarding notability, suggesting that a subject only needs to be potentially encyclopedic to merit inclusion. (3.) Consensus is also suggested to be fairly broad and not a simple or even a mathematically predetermined ratio. Basically, if enough people feel that an article belongs in the Wikipedia, then the article should stay. (4.) Leaving aside the votes of people (myself included) who have staked out unshakable positions on Universism, leaves Geogre, Carrp, Dpbsmith, and Rick voting for deletion, and SlimVirgin, Nat, Grue, and Jimbo Wales voting to keep it. I have discounted the votes of myself, Ford Vox, Andrew Lenahan, and Antaeus Feldspar as our positions are too entrenched, and have not looked into the history of a few people who voted and went away but whose votes more or less balance out. Arevich 02:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Man, you really just take the cake. I like your claim that you've now read lots of policy pages and that that is where you got the idea of discounting any vote from someone "entrenched". Why, using that kind of logic, you could probably get the article on World War II deleted, since the majority of people would tell you "Don't be stupid! Of course World War II needs to be covered!" and you would discount their votes for being too "entrenched". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you Antaeus. Your comments and the tone of your comments are more than enough to make my point for me. I am not a Universist, although I like what they stand for. I am not a Wikipedia "newbie", although I am also not a frequent contributor. I do value opinions other than my own. I will not be terribly upset if Universism is not undeleted, although I do think that it should be. In my comment above I do not claim to be speaking for anybody other than myself, I just tried to summarize the votes of the people who voted without shouting. By the way, I also don't need to insult people to make myself feel better, although I feel sorry for people who do. And BM, I'm sorry that I forgot to count your non-shouted vote in my summary, but I was not trying to sum up a final tally, only to say that there is so much disonance on this topic that it seems obvious (to me) that there should be at least some sort of Wikipedia entry for Universism. Arevich 22:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Problem is, Arevich, this is the Votes for Undeletion page. This is where we bring back articles that have already been deleted. It is not supposed to be a rehash of the same arguments that we went through the first time. The Universism article has already been up for deletion twice, and there was consensus to delete it both times, one of them very recently. As was stated earlier, this is not a second (or in this case, a third) chance for the people opposed to deletion to have another bite at the apple. Unless there was something wrong with the process the first time around, or some change in the facts, generally the sense is that an article should stay deleted. The "bring back" forces don't have to get the two-thirds consensus that had to be obtained for the original deletion, but the burden is on them to at least produce a majority of people arguing that there was something wrong the last time around, or that there is some new data. Fortunately it won't be you doing the tallying. You've discounted people whose votes actually count. And counted Jimbo, who hasn't even voted. --02:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Jimbo Wales hasn't voted. And what he says is very carefully phrased: "I should not[e] that I have not looked at the VfU page, so perhaps there is further information of which I am not aware. I'm just saying that in general, something that has gotten major press coverage is almost certainly worth at least a stub." Most of us would agree with that last sentence. Most of us would have agreed with it whoever said it. The question is: is Universism getting major press coverage? In regard to that question, I point at zero relevant hits in Google News and say "no." User:Universist points to an opinion piece in The New York Times and says "yes." Jimbo Wales says... nothing at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So, I'll ask for the third time -- would any opponent be willing to join me in requesting that Jimbo look at this VfU and cast his vote? Would anyone from the opposing side be willing to co-endorse such a request? My challenge to that effect has been up a while, and so far, I've had no takers. --Nat 05:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not. This thing isn't important enough to require his attention, and trying to do so is an obvious attempt at an end-run around the existing process. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • "Absoluetly not," eh? Clearly, you know as well as I do that Jimbo's vote would likely favor including the article. He has stated as much on his talk page. It is revealing that no one will touch my challenge with a ten-foot pole. Don't you want to hear Jimbo's opinion? It's not an "end run" at all. I began all this with an admission that Jimbo's word is not necessarily law, and even so, I was taken to task for supposedly suggesting that Jimbo's vote would decide the issue. Unless Jimbo makes an issue of it, his vote will be equal to any other vote. So, who will co-endorse a request to get his vote? Still no takers? --Nat 08:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • What you're trying is precisely an end run: the overwhelming consensus is that this article will stay deleted, and you're hoping that an Appeal to Authority in the person of Jimbo Wales will save it, either by wowing editors here with the name-dropping or snowing Jimbo sufficiently so he'll override the consensus. Don't you want to hear Jimbo's opinion? Nope, no more than anyone else's. If Jimbo's interested enough, he'll make the time and come over. If you want to go over everyone's heads, you go ahead and do it and take responsibility for the plea yourself: if the issue is as cut-and-dried as you seem to be implying, then he'll no doubt welcome the input and not treat it as, for example, a lone desperate plea to save an unencyclopedic article. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Nat, you don't need a co-endorser. I personally don't think it's quite cricket to invite people to vote in VfD or VfU debates but it happens all the time and there's no rule against it. If you want someone you expect to support you to vote here, just invite them. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • You're right, I don't need a co-endorser. I never thought I did. That wasn't the point - I was trying to see just how strong the opposition thought their arguments were. So far, there have been lots of excuses and rationalizations, but no member of the opposition has expressed any interest in having Jimbo look at the arguments. If Jimbo had not already commented on the matter, I wouldn't have even suggested bringing him into it - but he has weighed in (expressing tentative favor toward undeletion), so the fact that no member of the opposition wants to hear more from him is telling. --Nat 04:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • No, he has not expressed tentative favor toward undeletion of this article. That's a misrepresentation of a carefully phrased and quite guarded statement on policy, namely "in general, something that has gotten major press coverage is almost certainly worth at least a stub." But, "in general," everyone agrees with that. The question is specific: Are the Universists getting "major press coverage?" The only coverage they say they're getting in Birmingham, Alabama is in a free weekly. Look, someday this group of 7000 members whose meetings are biweekly, "often at each others' houses" may be famous. Every big movement looked like the Universists at some stage in its history, and the behavior which BM calls "insane self-promotion" is likely to be a precondition. I wouldn't be astonished to see the UU to merge with the Universists and become the UUU someday. As of 2005 I say they aren't getting "major press coverage." Feel free to differ. Feel free to ask others to join this discussion if you think that's proper. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting. I wonder if I am the "teenager" mentioned here. If so, Antaeus said it very graciously - I am much further from my teenage years than I care to admit. To the facts of the case: It is not as clear-cut as it was during the first VfD discussion. There has been some media coverage since then. However, the group's confirmed membership remains low and all the coverage I reviewed was more focused on the group's existence than on their accomplishments. Based on the available evidence, I believe that this still represents a "current event" which would be better covered in WikiNews than in Wikipedia. The admission on their website that they are deliberately seeking to use Wikipedia for publicity also influences me against them. I'm afraid I must vote to keep deleted for now. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Being the person that made the teenager comment, I was thinking of Scott, having seen his picture. I got him and BM confused (BM started the deletion and I was thinking of him). How could you take it to mean you, you did not express an opinion against I do not recall, you were just the admin that tallied the votes and did the deed. Here is an even more NPOV version of a Universism article that has been submitted to me: http://universist.org/npovuniversistmovement.htm As for using Wikipedia for publicity, that is not the case and not what is meant by my comment on the Faithless forum. If you dig on the Faithless forum you will find a comment from me in December stating that only 20 click-throughs or less came to universist.org via Wikipedia when the article existed, which is insignificant for us. Given that Wikipedia exists, and understanding what Wikipedia is and what is good for it, Universism should be in it. Not being in Wikipedia is bad for Wikipedia and looks weird for Universism given its status. Given this information, and that you seem a fair minded person based on your handling of the VfD, I would appreciate your reconsidering your vote Rossami. Universist 05:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My ears are burning : ) -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 07:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought I was probably the "teenager" since I was the person who nominated Universism for deletion the first time. I'm 50. Have a little respect for your elders, sonny. By the way, since that age is at least double the average of Wikipedians, it means my vote counts for double. --BM 10:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing's really changed since the first VfD, and I don't see procedural or factual errors requiring a reconsideration of the second vote. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Nothing's really changed since the first VfD" Too much on this page for people to read anymore? Universist 07:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I read the entire page, along with your mostly fact-free assertions about the "explosion" in notability, Ford. So let me try again: Nothing's ——>really<—— changed since the first VfD, your tireless promotional efforts not withstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, there may be a lot of words on this page but there isn't a lot of content, which is mainly because Universist keeps repeating himself. Repetition does not make an argument valid. Repetition does n- oh never mind :) Radiant! 12:00, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Success guru W. Clement Stone did. Well, effective if not valid. I heard him talk one. He would say "Repetition!-Repetition!-Repetition!-Repetition!" literally hammering the point home with his fist into his cupped hand...
• Keep deleted. Simple promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't consider the Wikipedia entry of Universism to be promotional, and therefore see no reason why it falls under the criteria for deletion. I am a longterm user of Wikipedia, I link to it from my start page. I am also a Universist, and will freely admit that no vote is unbiased. I believe it's important that we all realize that. While I am currently working to spread knowledge of Universism, I see no way in which a Wikipedia entry will do the same. A user would have to first know about Universism in order to find its entry. I hope for a day when many people will do that, and I consider it unfair to deny them the opportunity to learn about the movement if they choose to use the universe's greatest encyclopedia to do so. I only just joined Wikipedia, and likely would have put it off longer if I had not been motivated by my own bias towards Universism. However, I assume many members were drawn in my their own causes in their time. I am happy to be a member of Wikipedia, a very large group. And I am very happy to be a Universist, an equally valid, albeit smaller movement. G. Alex Janevski 3:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • (User's first edit. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I have no problem with Jimbo being invited to vote here, but even if he did, his would only be one more vote, not an official fiat either way. RickK 08:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, hubristic as always... (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

arbitrary section break so people can use section edit

• Undelete, extremely small group, but well past the requirements for being an article. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Reconsider in March, 2006

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is in no rush. Wikipedia are not interested in "scooping" anyone. Right now, there's a thin case to be made for Universism's future importance, but it's hardly overwhelming and not likely to sway many Wikipedians. Maybe Universism is the next Ethical Culture, but from the point of view of being an encyclopedia, it is not important whether the first article on the Universists appears in 2005 or 2006.

And WIkipedia is definitely not a vehicle for promoting or publicizing anything, worthy or not.

Pitbull tenacity in advancing a weak argument is no substitute for a good argument.

Let's wait a year. Wait until it is obvious instead of arguing the exact instant at which Universism has crossed some undefinable line. Let's suppose:

1. The Birmingham Post-Herald had run a front-page story like the one it ran today about the Wilson Chapel United Methodist Church in Roebuck Springs;
2. A search of the Birmingham News for "universism" and "universist" yielded a dozen hits instead of none;
3. The Universists had a regular listing on the Birmingham News religion calendar;
4. The Universists had established chapters in (say) two other southern university towns, like Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Austin, Texas;
5. A phone directory lookup on Anywho or Switchboard for "Universist" or "Universism" or whatever is the considered to be the correct formal name of the movement turned up a street address and telephone number...
6. The Universists had a campus chapter and a listing in the student activity directory, like the Latter Day Saints Student Organization or B'nai Brith or Yoseikan Budo or the UA Objectivist Club...

...then there would be a clear case for regional significance.

I propose that we formally agree that:

We will set March 1, 2006 as a date, after which our policy on re-creation of previously deleted content will no longer apply to Universism and will not be taken into account in discussions of new articles on Universism.

Support

1. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Allan Revich Although I do think it is already notable enough for inclusion, I suppose that from an encyclopedic viewpoint, a year is not such a long time. Arevich 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) No special reason to pick one year... but it feels okay to me.
4. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. I think this debate has taken too much of our time and has gotten too heated. I suggest that both sides take some time to think about it, and revisit the issue at a later date. A year sounds like a good compromise.
5. Antaeus Feldspar 16:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) I support the proposal, but mostly because I think it will give us a year of peace, not because I think the hardcore Universists who are pushing hard for this article will realize within that year that 'pushing hard' is not the magic formula for getting the article on Wikipedia that Ford Vox announces Universism "needs".
   • Correction Actually the post by Vox on 3/10/05 to which Antaeus Feldspar refers states "A Wikipedia article on Universism is not at all necessary for our continued growth" 164.111.30.63 15:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • We are both incorrect on this one. Whichever post by Vox on 03/10/05 you think I am referring to, I am not. I am referring to post #5 in this discussion -- the thread is titled "Wikipedia and Universism, Articles needed!" and Ford talks about how Wikipedia "has a monopoly on google searches" -- but I was incorrect in that Ford does not actually use the word "need" in describing how Universism should have a Wikipedia article to boost its search engine ranking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. Radiant_* 10:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) - sounds like a good idea to postpone this discussion for a certain amount of time.

Oppose

1. The criteria mentioned above do not make sense, and why a year, why not 5 years? Why not 5 days? This is not what Wikipedia is about. Please see Jimbo Wales' assessment. Read the Wired article if you are confused about what Wikipedia is. Universist 22:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. It would be nice to know that we are not going to have this discussion again for a year, but I don't support an arbitrary date for reconsideration. If something develops where the notability of the group overwhelms the sense that we are being badgered by an "insane self-promoter", then we should consider it then -- whether that is in two months from now, or a year, or five years, or never. --BM 12:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The Birmingham News and The Birmingham Post Herald are both conservative publications. No one in our audience uses its community events calendar, and they are not interested in doing a story on us due to the aforementioned political views. We are based in Birmingham ALABAMA. We have already received a COVER STORY in the NUMBER TWO publication in this city, THE BIRMINGHAM WEEKLY. We are listed in its events calendar and that of Black and White every week. The phone directory criterion is absurd, we could have that tomorrow but are not interested in buying a Bellsouth phone account or paying for yellow pages listing. We should not have to pay $40/month to Bellsouth to get in Wikipedia. As for a campus chapter at the UA, there is already an UA freethought group and it barely subsists, we want to support it not compete with it. Indeed there is audio of us speaking at one of their meetings on universist.org Your proposals are entirely uninformed. Universist 17:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, no phone, so no phone directory listing. I couldn't find a street address on your site or via Google. Have you got one? As far as I know the USPS doesn't charge for that.
    • Every member I am aware of has a phone. Every member I am aware of has an address. We meet at a different location every two weeks, often each other's houses. Universist 20:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you registered as a nonprofit corporation with the Alabama Secretary of State, and if so under what name? A search on "Universist" and "Universism" yield no hits.
  • Are you registered with the Feds as a 501(c) so you can take tax-exempt donations? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Again you do not understand the structure of our movement. We do not seek tax deductible donations, we have nothing to buy. We certainly are not interested in registering with the U.S. Government. We are spreading information and starting local groups, we use word of mouth and the internet. Universist 20:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Another Comment I just want to add my support to the Birmingham Universists. I don't live in Birmingham, I don't know Ford Vox or Tod Stricker personally. In fact I have never been to Birmingham. I am not a sock puppet, nor have I been asked by anyone to contribute to this discussion (the "leaders" of the Universist movement seem to have given up on this issue). You might be able to check from my IP address that I'm in Sydney, Australia. I've read through this discussion and followed up the references, and I can't help thinking that there is some serious bias here against the Universist movement. I did create this username just to participate in this discussion, and I am a registered Universist, so I won't vote on this issue, but I do ask anyone who does vote (whenever you do decide to vote) to please reconsider censoring articles on Universism. We have heard of Universism in Australia; it is not just an idea pushed by one "insane self-promoter", it's not some loony cult. It's just about applying reason to religious belief. I have noticed a number Universists in Australia registered on the Universist web site. Censorship and bias is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please don't let the enthusiasm of the organisers bias you against documenting the movement. It is hard for anyone to justify deleting articles about Universism because of a lack of "notability", and blindly applying the policy of deleting articles just because similar articles were deleted before is just plain silly if the reasons for deletion have changed. Alan Tonisson 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've read through this thread, which doesn't really make me a qualified Universalismologist, but the groups supporters seem to me to be a fringe group fighting for relevance, rather than a growing institution. The fact that the founder of the belief is in here taking pot shots at people is a pretty good indicator in that regard. Frankly, the way that he's waving the NYP article around leads me to believe that in the end this may end up being used as another weapon in their fight, so the people arguing against the inclusion of the article now would end up being forced to monitor this backwater article 24/7, as proponents break neutrality and try to turn it into a glowing recommendation. Because of this, I'd vote for the year wait (if it would actually make a difference -- I like WP and have used it for a long time, but I haven't signed up yet since I'm not an expert on many things. :) ), if only to avoid the problems inherent with trying to keep a neutral article about such an obviously vocal group. - SJ Zero

---

• The Universist Movement is quickly gaining notable attention worldwide. Could this possibly warrant a new review on keeping an article about them? If you Google "Universist" you will note over 26,000 articles or dicussions on them.

I submitted the article this time and it was automatically deleted without it showing up in the history section as to who deleted it. Let's be fair about this without using past prejudices. Speedy deletion this time around should not be allowed, it does not meet the criteria. kkawohl

Hello, I vote yes.