Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Universism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

not yet determined. This is going to take me a few days to sort out. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk)

This discussion thread has also become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. Comment: For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please move it. Rossami (talk) 04:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recap table

Keep votes  
Keep
  1. 67.102.133.230 *
  2. 24.131.242.206 *
  3. Kiwimac *
  4. NobleSavage *
  5. GodlessUSSoldier *
  6. 64.12.116.137 *
  7. anon signing as Allister Cucksey *
  8. User:205.166.253.15 signing as dduane *
  9. User:Mathyoo *
  10. User:Zagadka *
  11. L33tminion
  12. mindbender *
  13. User:222.152.143.117 *
  14. Mikenassau *
  15. 207.69.139.145 signing as Second Sex *
  16. Jacksonic *
  17. Rachel Sherman *
  18. invisio *
  19. Asbestos
  20. User:209.220.229.254 signing as MattArnold *
  21. Amencrusade *
  22. DemonKnight713 *
  23. anon signing as Equinox2 *
  24. LilCarolyn *
  25. Oolitic *
  26. Dounia *
  27. 69.105.28.31 signing as Jon Paine *
  28. ElBenevolente
  29. Hadius *
  30. 170.54.59.167 *
  31. Samaritan
 Redirect
  1. ChrisCarera
 Delete
  1. BM
  2. Antaeus Feldspar
  3. jhuger *
  4. SimonP
  5. Gamaliel
  6. Mikkalai
  7. Xezbeth
  8. Andrewa
  9. Kappa
  10. Jerzy
  11. Mo0
  12. Scott Burley
  13. Gary D
  14. Duncharris
  15. Calton
  16. Gtabary
  17. LeeHunter
  18. Thejollyroger
  19. 4.229.24.26 *
  20. rernst
  21. Chuckstar
  22. Cdc
  23. Indrian
  24. DCEdwards1966
  25. Lucky 6.9
  26. Wyss
  27. Sean Curtin
  28. Wile E. Heresiarch
  29. Ambi
  30. Jayjg
  31. Ping
  32. Validian *
  33. Ashley Pomeroy
  34. GeorgeStepanek
  35. Naturyl
  36. Deist
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  1. R. fiend
  2. Jayon
  3. 152.130.7.131 *
  4. Rossami (talk)

Note: The names tagged above with * represent participants who are either anonymous or has been tagged in the discussion below as a user with an unverifiable history (usually, a short edit history). The deciding admin should review these votes very carefully. Some may be sockpuppets. Others appear to be well-intentioned contributors who have not previously created accounts. Rossami (talk)

Please define the criteria used to identify these participants. For example, BM is not identified as such, but contributed only 17 edits before 3 Dec 2004, and most of these were to only one article. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 21:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
George, I marked some a few of them, although not most. Following the lead of Antaeus, or at least what I thought he was doing, I marked them with the asterisk if the name had no other edits other than to this Vfd page. There are a couple that I didn't mark that might still be suspect because they had made a couple of additional edits on other pages but all the edits were after this vote started. This vote started in the evening on Sunday, Dec 5; so I'm not sure what the relevance is in my case of how many edits I made before and after Dec 3. If anybody questions my bona fides based on insufficient edits under "BM", I can probably pull together the edits I made under various IP addresses going back to August 2003; but you would have to take my word for it. There were probably dozens of small typo fixes, spelling corrections, verb agreement, etc type edits that I made that I'll never be able to find again; but there were also a fair number of more substantial edits. The first article I worked on was "Atheism". --BM 21:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BM, I apologise if you feel that I have questioned your bona fides. I was using your case as an example to highlight the lack of criteria for this distinction. Without defining such criteria, the distinction may seem suspect. Thank for clarifying the criteria that you have used. Please note that by these criteria, Kiwimac (for example) does not have an "unverifiable history". [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 22:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No offense taken, George. I don't think it was me who marked Kiwimac; but if it was, it looks like I made a mistake. There has been a bit of funny business with people signing names when the actual signature was an IP, and the IP didn't have edits. I didn't investigate any of those, but Scott and Antaeus were looking into some of those. I'm not saying Kiwimac is an instance of this, but it is possible that there was some confusion like that. Or it could have just been a boo boo. Next thing you know, we'll be counting the hanging chads. --BM 22:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry if I threw off the count through my misunderstanding. I have marked edits with notation on the user's history when I thought that that user's history showed that they were not necessarily bringing to the vote the understanding of VfD of an experienced Wikipedian; either from a very small number of edits, or a larger number of edits whose timing seemed to indicate a cause for concern. When the recap table was created, I assumed that what was meant by an "unverifiable history" was any such history about which concern had been raised, so that individuals could go and check the notes on the user history for themselves. You raise Kiwimac as an example of a misidentified user, George, and it's true that Kiwimac's history is not "unverifiable". But even though Kiwimac first edited on September 5, 2002, E has only edited 22 times during that whole 25-month period, and only on four dates during that period. Doesn't that strike you as something that should be at least considered? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is something that should be considered, I agree, which is why comments in the text of the discussion are encouraged. However the table above makes a clear binary distinction between flagged and unflagged votes. The impression is that flagged votes are invalid in some way. Such a distinction should be only made according to clear, documented criteria, otherwise bias can creep in, or be perceived to creep in. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 23:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that the asterisk (*) should only apply to users who made their first edits after this disscussion started at 03:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC). Perhaps another symbol, such as †, could be used to flag users who made edits earlier but appear to be questionable for some other reason, which would have to be specified in the commentary. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B5C-QINU 03:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I can vouch that NobleSavage and Dounia are not sock puppets, as they are both regular users of the Universist Forum. Please note that my vote is to delete. --Nat 04:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note 2: This discussion thread currently stands at 80KB. User:R. fiend contacted me about his inability to participate in this discussion because his browser can't support the edit of such a long page. This is a known bug. Based on his request, I have inserted section headers at arbitrary locations just so users can use the section-edit feature. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Universism

This page describes Universism, which seems to be little more than a web site created by University of Alabama medical student. The web site states that the "author" of Universism "came up" with it in August 2003. That happens to be the month in which the Wikipedia article on Universism first appeared, with content drawn verbatim from the web site. The same verbatim text was posted around the same time on religioustolerance.org.
I have rewritten the article, which one might read for more information about this situation. But the article really should be deleted, unless Wikipedia intends to become the place for people trying to start their own religions to post their manifestoes and get traffic for their web sites. --BM 03:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep Every religion was started by someone. Why discriminate against ours? -- Note: This is 67.102.133.230's only edit.
  • Delete unless some evidence of notability surfaces. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep A significant movement uniting freethinkers. -- Note: This is 24.131.242.206's only edit.
  • Keep Universism is an interesting outgrowth of Deism. -- Note: Unsigned vote by Kiwimac; 22 votes total, and only four since November of 2002.
  • Keep Universism has 1,150 members on its meetup beating out Humanism, within a year. Yes this is a new movement. But that does not mean it isn't significant. United Universists has over 5,000 members and was recently the cover story of the Birmingham Weekly. Deist 03:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepUniversism is an idea who's time has come. It unites free-thinkers of many different philosophies, especially needed now in the political climate of America today. --NobleSavage 04:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) --
    • Note: This is User:NobleSavage's first edit.
  • Keep This movement truly is an ideal for the modern era. It is high time we shed the primitive superstitions of the past and move forward into the enlightened age that will be possible without the neurosis of religion.--GodlessUSSoldier 04:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Keep As a Humanist, Atheist, and a libertarian, I support this meta-movement.
    • Unsigned vote from 64.12.116.137.
    • And you're aware that "X is a good thing" does not in any way, shape or form imply "X should have its own article"? Tell me you comprehend the distinction, right? You do grasp that some bad things that no right-thinking person would support deserve articles and some good things whose goodness is unquestioned do not? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm George Bush, and I support this message - rernst 18:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I have gone into and read up on the Wikipedia's rules for deletion of an article... Your grounds are shaky at best. Ford Vox simply wrote this article to inform everyone here about Universim, it is no different from any other article that I have read here. So, if you wish to delete the Universism article, I suggest you delete everything on this vast and wonderful site. Or... you could pretend that you actaully are NOT afraid of Universism or jealous of Ford and that you know what the heck you are talking about. (paragraph break omitted) Universism and reason-based philosophies are what is required if we are to evolve with the changing times. We can not hide in our shadows of ignorance, fear and hatred any longer. Universism MUST be allowed to be on this site, or the administrators will be going against their own rules and this site will loose all credibility. -- Allister Cucksey, Student of Community Development at the Rural Development Institute, Brandon University
    • User's first edit.
      • If I had a dime for every time I've seen someone show up on a VfD and with their very first edit declare that they know the rules of Wikipedia better than anyone else and that whether we keep their favorite article or not will decide whether we are a real site for information or just "afraid" and "jealous", I'd be deciding on the color of the Porsche I was going to buy. Anyone for the VfD drinking game? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm no big fan of drinking games, but I'm more than happy to both drink and delete. However, though I have deletion tendencies on this matter, I need to abstain for now. "Universism" gets me 5,980 google hits, which seems sort of high. Obviously I can't be bothered to check them all out, but it does make me wonder if there's something to this. My five sockpuppets, however, all vote delete, I just can't be bothered to actually go through the process of creating them right now. -R. fiend 06:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE ( was Undecided, see below ) How many defferent ways are there to say atheist / agnostic / freethinker / humanist / bright / naturalist / secularist ? Do they each need their own entry?--jhuger
    • Note: This is jhuger's only edit. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B5D-QINU 07:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have some sympathy for jhuger's underlying point here. There is a bit of a disorgnized mish-mash in this area, as the advocates of the various "-ism's" have all sought to have "their" article in the Wikipedia. But all of these movements are intellectual tendencies which have existed for a decade or two (at least) and on which books have been written (except for the "brights"), and we don't need to make things worse by countenancing every newly-minted "-ism" whose first move is to start a web-site, and whose second move is to write a Wikipedia article about themselves. --BM 14:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Someone suggested United Universists' should "write a book" to be real, and you're arguing it's insignificant because it started as a website. Excuse me, but don't you think the next big thing will start on a website? I sure do. Books are old media, websites are interactive and hundreds of people have been discussing Universism and refining it for a year now, in the meantime the movement continues to grow. Such a funny reason to delete something from an online encylopedia - because it started online.Deist
    • Ford Vox contacted me via email to impress upon me the need for Universism to stay in Wikipedia so as to maintain a presence in the public eye. That is 1) slimy in the extreme and 2) essentially an admission that he is using Wikipedia to promote Universism. I've changed my vote to DELETE. BTW, I'm one of the 5,000 Ford likes to claim as supporters.jhuger
      • How do you know that Jhuger? You are only counted as one of the 5,000 if you filled out this form: http://www.universist.org/signup.htm - Did you fill out that form stating that you are a Universist? I don't think so. Then you are not counted. Why is my contacting you slimy? I read your post and I wanted to persuade you otherwise, what is slimy about an email to a member of the forum I run? And since when it is news that Universists are trying to save this article because we think it helps the growth of Universism? That's why I emailed forum members last night. That's why I'm bothering to explain why this article is worthy. If no one read wikipedia I wouldn't care. Deist
        • That's just the problem. You don't care about Wikipedia, you're just using it to advance your philosphy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B5E-QINU 01:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't want it for a soapbox. Yes, a certain percentage, I can't say how many, but I know a percentage of people have discovered Universism via Wikipedia. Guess what, encyclopedias expose people to new things. Wonder of wonders. Wikipedia can have a fair, objective article on Universism. So long as there is an article - what we have done so far deserves that. Deist
            • But what have you done? You're only claim to notability seems to be the 5000 people you've signed up. I could write a fair, objective article about my house, which hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been to via various parties and such. But, it's not notable. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B5F-QINU 02:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
              • The argument was that Universism is fake. It's not. 5,000 joining a new religious movement in one year is order of magnitude more significant than most things. --152.130.7.131 17:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • The original argument was not that Universism was fake, but that it was too insignificat to have an article. While BM may have underestimated the size, the argument can still be made that Universism is insignificant. In any case, the vote here is not on whether Universism should be deleted for being insignificant, but if it should be deleted on any grounds. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B60-QINU 19:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • Re: being one of the 5000: I didn't fill ou the form you mentioned, I stand corrected jhuger
  • Keep I think that this is an important new perspective. dduane --
    • Note: This is User:205.166.253.15's only edit. [per Antaeus F]
    • Antaeus successfully IDed the actual user, obsoleting these entries which are restored by Jerzy(t) 07:06, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) for the sake of the record & to satisfy nagging doubts of those who remember seeing them:
      • NOTE -- This vote was added by User:Mindbender, who later tried to add a second vote under her own name.
        • No, it was NOT. I originally replied UNDERNEATH this user but removed my post for editing. And you now see it down below. Please do not jump to conclusions! Thank you. - mindbender
          • Thank you for clarifying the record, Jerzy. I confess I did make a mistake, trying to figure out which user had added which unsigned vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, votes have convinced me that this is advocacy and non-encyclopedic. - SimonP 05:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, they do each need their own entry. Not every atheist is the same, nor every agnostic, etc. Universism is not the same as humanism, or naturalism, or any of the others. To think so is simplistic and lazy. --
    • Note: This is User:Mathyoo's first edit.
  • Sockpuppet voters have convinced me to vote delete. Gamaliel 05:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that this "5000" figure is rather suspect. I became a Universist last night by filling out a form on their website. This is just a passing fad, not a noteworthy movement, and I find the behavior and accusations (especially against BM) of its adherents here particularly distasteful. Gamaliel 19:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP To date, the Universist movement has recieved the following media coverage:
      • "Gimme That New-Time Religion" by Dale Short of the Birmingham Weekly, published in the July 22-29, 2004 edition
      • "Jonathan is a Universist" on BBC, May 26, 2004. BBC item
    • [The above unsigned vote was placed (at end of VfD footer!) by single-edit User:Zagadka 04:31, 2004 Dec 6 & moved here by Jerzy(t) 06:25, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)]
  • Delete. Mikkalai 05:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable to me. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:49, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason why this page to should be removed. Universism is an inevitable progression of rational philosophy and due for recognition. mindbender -- Note: mindbender's only edits have been to this page.
  • I would have voted Delete anyway [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 05:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. Is the figure of 5000 members verifiable? If so it's a probable keep. Some of the comments above are annoying, but we shouldn't delete an article just because a chorus of sock puppets want to keep it. No vote yet. Andrewa 06:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ANSWER BY --NobleSavage 13:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC): "Yes, the 5,000 members are those who have signed the online mission statement and provided contact information and addresses on themselves. This mission statement and these signatures are available online on the universist website."

    • Edits by new users don't automatically imply so-called "sockpuppets". Aren't there IP checks for that? - mindbender
      • Delete. Not because of still more annoying and irrelevant comments (reminding me a bit of the Time Cube debate), but because I'm going to argue from the silence that there is no good evidence for the claimed membership numbers, therefore presumed unverifiable and non-notable. Andrewa 10:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: The belated attempt at verification above (again ignoring the formatting conventions of this page) has been well answered below. I was assuming good faith, but there is now ample evidence that this is not a safe assumption. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Naturally, my dear non-believer
    • Unsigned vote by User:222.152.143.117, their only edit.
  • [Comment: ] SimonP, Anaeus, Mikkalai - No sock puppets. Too bad you can't see IP's. I notified some Universists about this article, BM's recent edits and BM's desire to delete it (what a great username by the way for someone trying to pull off this s--t). I gave them the link to learn about the vote for deletion process, the wikipedia deletion policy, and the link to this page. Many are already users and participants in Wikipedia. This topic does not fit in one of the categories listed in the deletion policy. It is real and representative of a significant constituency. A factual article describing that worldview can easily be written and has been. In any vote for deletion there are people advocating for and against the topic and its worthiness to be in the encyclopedia, so the fact that people are advocating for the topic's worth is not surprising. The article objectively and factually describes the philosophy of Universism, that is its only point. It is wikipedia worthy because it is real, growing and having an impact in society. BM is arguing otherwise. That is his rational for deletion. He thinks it's just a med student and a web page. He is wrong. Deist
    • Too bad you don't know enough about Wikipedia yourself to realize that users who show up only to cast votes are taken about as seriously as those known to be sock-puppets. These supposed "already users and participants in Wikipedia" clearly don't know anything about the deletion policy, because they're making the same mistakes users who've been called in just to sway a vote always make, and as you can see, they're doing far more harm than good; people are voting against it because you tried to pull in such users. Not to mention that your personal attacks and theirs are doing no good to your cause at all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Great. Delete it then because I don't know the inside scoop, not whether or not the article is worthwhile. This is going to be a fabulous encylopedia. Deist [sig rem-ed by author restored by Jerzy(t) 06:57, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)]
      • Here's news to you bub - this will happen more in future. Organizations and movements are easily connected via the internet and can communicate. Too bad Universism isn't fake. Too bad there aren't thousands of supporters. Then the article would survive deletion. Deist
        • Yes, yes, what a wonderful encyclopedia we would have if we let every article be written solely by its own adherents, who also got to make all decisions concerning it. That'd make a great resource of factual information that people could trust. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)\
          • I don't care who writes the article so long as they are objective. BM clearly doesn't like Universism from the suspicious voice in his rewrite and then vote to delete the article he rewrote. Wikipedia should have an article on Universism that describes what it is and what its goals are if Wikipedia is trying to catalog what's going on in civilization. Deist
          • What was written on wikipedia is merely an description of the philosophy itself. I don't see how that makes it any less "factual" than any other philosophy. As far as the number of "adherents" is concerned, if we were going to lie about it, why only 5,000? That's not a particularly large number! However, I believe it is significant for a new and growing movement. - mindbender
      • Why shouldn't Universists be allowed equal votes on the topic of Universism? It's an absurd and elitist notion to think that what we have to say should carry less weight. The fact is someone is attempting to claim we are not a real movement or a new philosophy. We're here to prove that claim is unfounded. - mindbender
        • They aren't attempting to claim universalism doesn't exist, just that it isn't a large/famous/notable enough movement to deserve an article yet. You would need probably thousands of votes to prove your size like that. Things like the Birmingham Weekly are more useful, but really you may need to come back if/when you are better known. Kappa 07:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If there's a place to vote on the topic of U'ism, go do it. This vote is on the topic of a WP U'ism article, and U'ist or not, votes from those whose grasp of what WP is is so tenuous are merely evidence of a dozen or so adherants, not of relevance to WP. --Jerzy(t) 07:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
        • First, you're not being denied equal votes because you're Universists. You're being denied equal votes because your edit histories began today and, since that's the only objective indication we have of your experience with Wikipedia, for all we know you never even heard of Wikipedia before Deist (by his/her own admission) gave you a call and said "Hey, they're talking about whether to delete the article on Universism! You should come over there and just for showing up they'll give you a vote that counts as much as anyone's!" Which, as we've tried to explain, is untrue. You don't get an "equal vote" just for showing up because you haven't made an equal investment of time and energy into Wikipedia. You haven't shown that you understand why we started a discussion of the article and whether it should be deleted; you haven't shown that you understand what the goals of Wikipedia are or the practices that we have established to pursue those goals or why we adopted those practices. The question is not "why isn't Wikipedia giving free and equal votes to people who showed up just to vote," it's "why on Earth did anyone expect that they could simply walk in and say 'I've never shown any sign before that I gave a damn about Wikipedia but now you should let me determine its course'?" If a flood of strangers suddenly showed up in one of your decision-making councils and said "We've read your rules and now, having read them, we understand them better than you and we know that you're wrong and so we've all showed up to make sure a vote to affect Universism goes the way we want", would you give them each an "equal vote"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Well said, Antaeus - rernst 19:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I never claimed to know Wikipedia's rules better than you do. Tonight in fact was the first I'd read them. However, I've searched articles on wikipedia.org and wikibooks.org many times, and this will probably not be my last time here. Until tonight, I've never had a reason to sign up or make an edit. Admittedly it was Deist who informed me of the problem with the Universism article, but I would not have gotten involved if I didn't think the proposal for deletion was unfounded. You may think I am biased - and I undertand if you think that - but I believe saw a negative bias reflected in the person's post who put it up for deletion. The author claims we are little more than website! That is completely untrue. We a small movement (only 5,000), but we are growing bit by bit in communities world wide. I think we have the right to counter without being slammed down, don't we? - mindbender
            • I wasn't referring to you, specifically; I was in fact referring to Allister, from whose vote I'll quote: "I have gone into and read up on the Wikipedia's rules for deletion of an article... Universism MUST be allowed to be on this site, or the administrators will be going against their own rules and this site will loose all credibility." Now within the text of his vote, he openly discloses that the Universism article was in fact written by the founder of Universism, Ford Vox, thus showing that he did not understand the Wikipedia policy which is seen by anyone who edits a new page: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:Policy)." Even giving Allister the benefit of the doubt, presuming that he mistakenly thought an article created by the founder of a movement to "inform" people about the movement was somehow different from creating an article to "promote" the movement -- it still shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. As for the right to counter, yes, you (collectively) have the right to counter. But I'm afraid you (collectively) have gone about it in a way that hurts your cause more than it helps; instead of addressing the actual concerns we have (it's rather hard to verify that Universism has any notability beyond what a small group of aggressive self-promoters could achieve) most of the posts you (collectively) have put here mistakenly address non-issues ("Universism is an idea who's time has come." -- NobleSavage -- "This movement truly is an ideal for the modern era." -- GodlessUSSoldier -- "As a Humanist, Atheist, and a libertarian, I support this meta-movement." -- 64.12.116.137) and accidentally make the real issues worse (remember what I said about trying to find notability beyond what aggressive self-promoters could arrange for themselves? Well, guess what you (collectively) look like for descending en masse upon Wikipedia and demanding that we have an article on Universism because it's "due for recognition"?) My advice is to stop trying so hard to ensure that you have a Wikipedia article, because even if you have one, you certainly will not be allowed to control its contents, and let the VfD take its course. If you're absolutely convinced that Universism will continue to grow and gain the recognition it deserves, then it should just be a matter of time before you can come back and present the evidence of notability that is under debate here. Remember one very important principle: the more respect you demand, the less you will actually receive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Oh, and hey, some of the people you invited in to sway the vote have tried deleting votes. Guess how much good that does for your cause? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "(what a great username by the way for someone trying to pull off this s--t)" // No personal attacks, per Wikipedia policy. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B61-QINU 07:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break inserted in order to get each section below the 32KB limit

  • Del. University-centered and/or on-line movements are likely to fade quickly; the first should survive by more than a year the graduation of all those who were students at the time of founding, & the second should amass & sustain working capital (monetary and or physical), before escaping the presumption of being flashes in the pan. At Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ignosticism i voted Keep, in support of similar distinctions from superficially similar groups, bcz that term has been around for decades. --Jerzy(t) 07:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I've mentioned on a couple VfD pages before, if someone's desperate enough to drag in a bunch of "new" users, I'm automatically inclined to be rather skeptic. Since this particular movement is based in a university, I don't have faith that it will be around, say, 10 years from now. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 08:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems like a decent, NPOV article. 5000 members (if true) is a surprising number. However, I'm concerned that this philosphy/religion is very young, and could be easily gone in a few months. The group hasn't really made any kind of impact, so in that sense in non-notable. If they're going somewhere, then they certainly deserve an article, but until then I'll have to say delete. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B64-QINU 08:03, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • keep The ignorant slamming of the group is unjustified and untrue. I graduated from University of Texas in 1960, so I am not a University of Birmingham student, and I now reside in the Bicol Region (southeast Luzon) of the Philippines. I have never lived in Alabama. Universism is unique in offering a religious home to all Rationalists and Freethinkers. I believe it has tremendous potential. That is why it is attracting members in Great Britain, Australia and the Philippines as well as across America.
    Mike Nassau
    (founder of the Apathetic Agnostic Church of Bicol)
    • This is Mikenassau's first and only edit. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 08:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 09:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) (Not Gary D's first edit, LOL)
  • Comment: Of the 14 keep votes so far, 2 have been from users who made their first edits before this article was listed on VFD. That's counting Deist who appears to have created the article as User:66.25.118.71 (the anon has made several edits to Deist's user page). -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B67-QINU 10:18, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (But don't double count me, since I also wrote the VfD proposal). Also, please note that while this group has since gained some very slight notability through intense online promotion, the original article was first posted in the SAME MONTH that Ford Vox says (right on the web site) he "came up" with it. They are good at promoting themselves, and no doubt the Wikipedia publicity is the main thing driving traffic to the web site and accounts for a large part of the attention they have gotten so far. You could basically say this group is an artifact of Wikipedia and Google. Most of the delete votes seem to be sockpuppets. Note that Deist identified himself in the Universism::Talk page as an "officer" of the group. Either Ford Vox himself, or the webmaster, probably. By the way, Scott, thanks for the comment about it being a decent NPOV article. This is my rewrite of the article. The article was originally a verbatim extract from the FAQ on the web site. If the article is not deleted, there will no doubt be an edit war as a the sockpuppets who have emerged here try to return the text to the original puff piece. --BM 10:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Addendum: In fact, I see that there is already an edit/revert war in progress. So, if the article isn't deleted, we can look forward to a series of disputes as the people behind this article try to preserve their free advertisement.)
    • Oh really? Universism is an artifact of wikipedia.org and google.com? Last I checked you have to search the name of a subject to get any results from this site. Very odd that so many people would search for "universism" on a whim without having the foggiest notion of what it could be refering to. Our numbers are not made up. The meetup.com clearly shows that we have over twice as many (1150) people signed up for meetups (person to person contact within a community) than humanists do. If I'm not mistaken 5,000 is an approximation of the number of people who have signed the mission statement. If you scroll down, you will see a sizeable chunk of signatories. Not all are listed as 1. the process is not automated and 2. not all people have agreed to go public. If you look at the addresses, however, you will notice that we are fairly spread out. I can understand you wanting to delete this article a year ago when Universism was a new concept but not today. - mindbender
    • How many meetups have actually occurred, and how many people actually attended? How many people have attended a *second* meetup? Not counting people who have simply signed the guest book (or whatever you call it) on the web site, how many Universists are actually involved in the UU organization? That is, work on the web-site, have contributed, attend meetings, etc? How many people are actually involved in the organization side of the group: such as running the web site, getting people to sign up for meetups, trying to get press, and flooding Wikipedia and other web sites with stuff about Universism? What else does the group do besides these things? How much money has been donated to the group? How much do you have in the bank?
      • Well to give just one example, there's me. -- MattArnold
  • Keep Universism. I am a user and appreciator of Wikipedia. This is my first entry and only vote. -(the)Second Sex (militant-, strong- and for many years also a card-carrying-Atheist) Note: 207.69.139.145's first edit since November 12.
  • I am an atheist/secular humanist/rationalist. I would say keep if Amazon came up with any decent books, but it doesn't, so delete. Try usenet or write a book. Dunc|☺ 12:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Secularism and redirect Just to let you know, I'm another person who got an email to come defend Universism. I don't really consider myself a Universist, but I do fit the definition. Honestly, I get tons of emails because I'm signed onto the message board, but I never actually visit the website. As far as I can tell, Universism is just an extension of secularism, and, while it may someday grow into its own, right now it's just not big enough to warrant its own article. To Deist (Ford Vox, I presume) and the Universists: It definitely seems like it was against the rule of vanity posting (especially since you posted it the same month you started the thing), and possibly against the recommendation of not including too much point of view. To BM, Antaeus, and the random people wanting the Delete: I know for a fact that this isn't a University-based philosophy (although it is clearly internet-based). I would also bet that wikipedia is not the main source at which people find out about Universism; Ford Vox is an insanely active promoter, and I continually run into Universism in a number of places (like every single atheist or secular-oriented website on the web), but never here. It's also naive to assume that people who are editing for the first time (like me) never use or appreciate wikipedia, and it's definitely distasteful for you to treat people like crap just because they've never posted before (it's not exactly welcoming to others, or flattering to you). However, you did have a legitimate reason to call this entry into question, and, if it's not deleted, it should, at the very least, be rewritten by someone not directly associated with the Universists (unless it really is objective--and that means objective enough to admit it started as a website), and, preferably, I think it should be merged with Secularism, at least until it becomes more widespread, and more well-known. And don't worry about me running away from wikipedia...now that you've actually gotten me to register, I'm going to add to the fairly shallow Lucy entry. I do understand, though, that your zeal is for the sake of the greater Wiki, and I forgive you.--ChrisCarera 12:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Chris, read the first sentence of the Secularism article to learn why Universism is not a form of Secularism. There are universists who believe in god and the supernatural. It is a unique perspective that does not fit in any category but its own.invisio
      • user's only edits are to this page - rernst 19:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Chris, thank you for your candor. I'm pleased that you intend to stay and help Wikipedia; I know it's not easy to see the difference right not, but we actually do welcome new users who come here with the intent of staying and helping. It's only when new users come in only to sway a vote that we get annoyed -- not because their opinions are not valuable, but because they're less likely to understand the reasons the debate has even come up. For what it's worth, you show a very good grasp of the factors we take into consideration, so I for one hope that you do stay and participate and establish the history that will give your votes full weight. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sock puppets/Astroturf movement notwithstanding, I would have voted the same, but I doubt I would have bothered looking into it if they hadn't shown up. --Calton 12:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Frankly this is nonsens. Whether elaborate or long or very much fleshed out doesn't change it's status. --Gtabary 13:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Unsure, I want to say keep since I am currently trying to actively participate in this "movement", but can't say it in clear conscience without more research. Jayon 13:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an active organization that people may want to find out about through this fine publication! Jacksonic 14:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • User's first edit.
  • Delete. It could be notable at some point in the future, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that it qualifies now. --LeeHunter 14:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess I'm considered a sock puppet by several people just because I normally would not be posting here if I had not read about this through Universism. Anyway, here is my two cents for what it is worth. I would not be personally offended if you removed this from your wiki encyclopedia. However, I believe that this movement of philosophy is substantial enough that you will simply add it back later. How much later I do not know. But I do believe that it is here to stay. I have talked to several people who share the same views that Ford simply recognized and put a name too. He is an observant thinker and did not necessarily start this philosophy from scratch. I believe Universism is a natural result of the fruition of living in reason. Whether or not I will always associate myself with Ford's movement, I can not say. However, I will call myself a Universist as long as my philosophy is described that way. --Rachel Sherman (first edit of this user)
    • Technically, you're not considered a "sock puppet", just an extraordinarily new user. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of practical difference between an extraordinarily new user who is brought in just to sway a Wikipedia vote and a sockpuppet; both of them are ways of sabotaging the process. Your comments will still be considered, and I personally thank you for taking a very reasonable view of the situation. I personally won't mind if your prediction is right, that the movement will continue to grow and will become so clearly notable that we add in the article at some later time. But I hope you'll agree that the decision should be based on the consensus of people who have experience with Wikipedia, and not on who has a large e-mail list of people who can be persuaded to show up just to vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. 5000 Members ? Noble Savage stated that the full list of members of 5000 was published on-line. By my count that list contains 383 names... just 4617 short of their claim. A lie ? Maybe there is another list Ford and his clan can make up/provide More likely the number 5000 comes from their E-mail listing. In that case, I am a member simply because Ford Vox and his clan rove around on religious forums and bash their philosophies and beliefs. Then, they pump their forums with their own ads and forum links. Standard recruiting tactics of UV. I became a "member" out of defence from his group and a need to sign on to their forum page is simply a means to this goal. To answer or discuss on any of their forums, you must become a member. If you are interested in the list find it yourself. I refuse to promote the organization in any way. --Thejollyroger
    • Keep This is becoming a referrendum on whether wikipedians like the philosophy or not. That is irrelevant. The question is whether it deserves an article. 383 people have signed their Mission statement in public, willing to face scorn and ridicule for supporting a new religion. 5,000 is the number who have filled out the signup form at United Universists' site specifying that they are Universists. It has nothing to do with the web forum membership, which is 1,257. Not everyone who signs up wants their name public, that should be obvious.Invisio
      • The only way you can say that it is "becoming a referrendum on whether wikipedians like the philosophy or not" is if we classify the new people who are showing up only to vote as Wikipedians, because they are the ones insisting "You have to keep it! I like it!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We shouldn't be voting to delete merely because of the absurd amount of new-user voting (I'm inclined to believe that the new voters are members of the group, not sockpuppets). Google finds nearly 6000 links, the first 20 of which, at least, are dedicated to this organisation. I'd say that there's reasonable interest out there. — Asbestos | Talk 15:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Asbestos, I respect your sentiment. But if you actually follow those links, you will find that very, very, frequently, the text is the same as what was posted originally in the Wikipedia article, and which is a verbatim extract of the FAQ on the web site. Do not suppose that Wikipedia is the only site they have spammed. This group, which is possibly only a handful of actual hyper-energetic people, has been very, very busy at self-promotion. That is notable, perhaps -- in the context of an article about how wiki's, online forums, and Google are being used to promote new religious organizations and gain them a "presence" on the Internet out of all proportion to their actual numbers. The philosophy itself does not merit an article here, however. By the way, most of the first hundred or two of those Google hits are the "Universism" we are discussing, but the rest are other "Universisms", probably. For example, there is such a thing as Chinese "universism", which is something else. --BM 15:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: An anonymous IP is trying to alter the record of this discussion by removing the original proposal for deletion and some of the early comments. --BM 15:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. It's a cult started by Vox and joined by a bunch of gullible followers. It's nothing but a different label for postmodernism. Note: 4.229.24.26's only edits are to this page.
  • Delete - non-notable, and the amount of sock-puppets are a major contributor for my vote too. - rernst 16:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. From reading Wikipedia's deletion policy, the main category of deletion BM could be talking about is that of a vanity page. This article is clearly not. If Universism were one webpage and one guy in Alabama, how would one explain that I have long been a Universist from Michigan? Or how would one explain the many dedicated Universists I've communicated with about this topic for months from all over the country? I, and they, have personally signed the mission statement with 1,000 names and addresses. Our personal photos, real names and locations are known to each other on the Universism global meeting forum. Local chapters meet every month off-line. Whether or not you believe Universism is a good thing, it's riding a grassroots groundswell worthy of an article. 6 Dec 2004 -- MattArnold (first edit of this user)
    • How long have you been a Universist, Matt, and how many meetups have you been to personally? How many people in your local chapter in Michigan? --BM 16:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • My beliefs have been Universist for almost 5 years. I only learned about the label and started applying it to myself about two years ago. I know of 17 Universists in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area. -- MattArnold Note: This edit was actually made by User:209.220.229.254, whose only edit is to this page; no actual MattArnold exists yet that I can determine. 209.220.229.254, if you're MattArnold, you probably want to follow the "create a login" link.
    • Just wanted to let you know for what it's worth that Matt Arnold is indeed a real person. He is my ex-husband/current boyfriend. He is not emotionally invested in this decision either and may not take the trouble to create a log-in since he merely wanted to share his view, but I sent him an e-mail about it.
      • That's interesting, since Ford Vox says he conceived and "wrote" Universism in August, 2003. If had these ideas for 5 years, what did you call yourself before that?
        • It was difficult. Before Ford coined the word, when people asked me what I was I tended to hem and haw. I didn't know whether they wanted to know my position on the subject of god, to which I would have said "atheist," or my position about the subject of faith, to which I would have said "rationalist," or my position on metaphysics, to which I would have said "naturalist" or "Bright." Humanism was a good overall world-view but too specific on topics on which I didn't agree with them. Those subtopics were all just bits and pieces, so it was kind of like not knowing whether to call myself from Detroit or from Michigan or from America; it depended on the context. Almost every Universist has said to me that they were like this, in that we were essentially consistent with Universism before we even had a name for it. This is why if you think we "follow" Ford Vox or his website, you've missed that the site has to follow us. His role was only to identify a large demographic (larger than its component parts) that needed an umbrella term and when he "wrote" Universism he was recording what he had noticed about that demographic. So clearly he's not a messiah. -- MattArnold
  • Delete. Let's get this over with. Chuck 16:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would have been indifferent, satisfied with a page combining some edited version of the junk originally posted (under section heading "What Universists believe" or some such) with BM's discussion of the group's background, but given all the foolishness here, it should just go away. Cdc 17:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But that's not what BM wants. He rewrote the article after all and did just that. Then he stood back from his beautiful piece and thought, let's just delete this topic altogether. What a wonder. People are voting against this article because a) they don't like universism or b) they don't like newbies on VfD. The facts are what matters. The facts are BM's case for deleting this article is erroneous. He thought it was a vanity article about Ford Vox (but the article did not mention Vox until BM added him, strange!). He thought it was just a web page. This discussion alone proves that is wrong. The Harvard Pluralism Project's recent recognition of Universism proves people should not be writing encyclopedia articles about something they don't even take the time to research.Invisio
      • Lets be clear about the Harvard Pluralism Project so-called "recognition" of Universism. This consists entirely of a short quote from the Universist web-site on a page of several such quotes from various web-sites. For all we know, the quote is there because the person who was doing the HPP web-site read about universism on the Wikipedia or one of the other web-sites spammed by the Universists and thought it was real. The phenomenon here, notable as part of a larger phenomenon, is how easy the Internet makes it these days for determined self-promoters. However, that underlines the responsibility that trusted sites like Wikipedia have in not letting themselves be used as outlets for self-promotion and press releases. And Invisio is right, the original article didn't mention Ford Vox. You have to go to the UU web site for the full Ford Vox vanity treatment. The vanity, Invisio my friend, is thinking that you only have to give your personal grab-bag of philosophies a catchy name and write them up on a web-site and that a few weeks later, it is notable enough for the Wikipedia. --BM 18:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • The Harvard Pluralism Project selected only nine "commonly used terms" to describe nonreligious people, the only two new ones were Bright and Universism. That is significant. As for your other point, so shortly after putting up the website, back in August 2003, Vox or a supporter started the initial Universism article on Wikipedia. Someone has chutzpah. I'm sorry you missed your chance to nip this audacious movement in the bud, but it is no longer chutzpah to keep the article. There are now thousands of Universists and Meetup.com alone lists 682 meetings so far. Vox, probably the guy with chutzpah, was on the cover of a magazine this summer. Looks like it's going places, regardless of the garage beginnings. -- i haven;t registered yet. -- Note: This is 152.130.7.131's only edit.
        • Well, your argument seems to be: he got away with it. When he submitted the article, it was an abuse of the Wikipedia. But now he has gotten away with it, and through abuse of the Wikipedia (and other sites) he's made his "philosophy" notable. Well, I might even buy this argument as galling and smug as it seems, but I wouldn't be so quick to concede that he *has* gotten away with it and that it is notable. It still seems pretty small time to me. You neglected to mention that the magazine he was on the cover of was the "Birmingham Weekly News" or some such. "Boy from prominent local family makes good" on p 1. Results of this year's Pumpkin Carving contest on p 2. etc. At any rate, the notable thing is not this ridiculous pastiche of a "philosophy" Vox has conceived, which the article was about (before I rewrote it) but the online phenomenon. Let's delete the Universism article and have one about all the impresarios out there using the Internet to promote themselves. Ford Vox will get my vote to be included in *that* article. --BM 18:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I've read your article and your comments here, and you keep calling Universism ridiculous and at the same time claiming that is not your argument for deletion, that it doesn't belong because it's insignificant. You also wrote on the Universism discussion page that you are not against Universism. But here you are calling it ridiculous. Universism is ridiculous to some, horrible to many, the end of the world to a few, it's a lot of things to a lot of people but it is a particular worldview written up and given a name which thousands (so far) share. Your article doesn't even describe it, which is no surprise since you don't know what it is. Try reading the FAQ. If you want to discuss whether universism is right or wrong, I've heard there are philosophy forums set up all over the internet for such discussions. Keep FYI, the Birmingham Weekly is owned by Creative Loafing. It is a major alternative newsweekly. Amencrusade
          • I'm not opposed to it. It's a pastiche of lots of different ideas in the freethought/humanist/naturalist vein that have some appeal to me. No doubt others feel the same way, and that is why they are attracted to it. The ridiculous part is that Ford Vox thought his ideas were the least bit original and notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. A few weeks after writing it he posts it here alongside humanism, atheism, deism, etc, and links it into the List of Religions as a new religion, up there with Christianity, Hinduism, etc. You know, Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammed, Ford Vox, like that. That is the ridiculous part.
            • Yeah, Vox is really full of himself. That's why he says all the time all he did was point out something millions of people already believe. Most Universists join the movement BECAUSE Universism describes the way of thought they already had, but didn't have a name or a community dedicated to it. Thanks to Vox and United Universists, it does now. Read the FAQ. Universism describes a way of thought that simply hadn't been given a name before. All Vox did was write it up and name it, (and promote the hell out of it). Read his speech on the site. Amencrusade
            • Sure, he can be quite honest and self-deprecating. He says, for example, that universism is just ideas "cobbled together" from an undergraduate course he took. I reckon that is right. The problem is that as a philosophy it shouldn't be on the Wikipedia unless it is a particularly original and apt "cobbling together" which has gained force from discussion, books, critical articles, and debates by scholars. As a social movement, it might warrant an article, even if the ideas are minor variations on the usual themes. There are plenty of religions and organizations like that, and many of them have articles devoted to them on Wikipedia. But generally, they've been around quite a bit longer and have a bit more tangible about them than a web-site and a meetups. --BM 19:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Speaking of meetups, I wanted to comment about that. Yes, meetups.org says there have been 682 meetups so far; but that isn't a particular big number. For example, the "brights" a similar group, and also very small, has more. But in the scheme of things these are small numbers. A small denomination of just 20 churches will have 1000 "meetups" per year, just counting Sunday services. And that is a tiny, tiny, denomination, a subgroup of a splinter of a schism. Coming back to real meetups, the Wiccans have had 5500 events so far. You're even behind meetups of Chihuahua dog owners (1077 events so far). Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the Chihuahua owners' association, by the way.

[edit] Arbitrary break inserted in order to get each section below the 32KB limit

  • Delete. Every single fad philosophy promogulated on the internet does not deserve a listing on wikipedia. Furthermore, anytime the sockpuppets and first time posters come out in force like this it is usually a sign that they are attempting to mask the inherent unencyclopedic nature of an article by spamming the VFD entry. Indrian 19:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like it or not, this group of people is growing and has already grown beyond the level of "fad." When complaining about the number of words used to describe humanists, freethinkers, etc, think about the number of denominations there are in Christianity alone. This is a legitimate religious movement that is attempting to spread the word about its beliefs and foundations.DemonKnight713
    • User's second edit, and the first was an unsigned contribution to this VfD page.
  • Keep. OK, since everyone wants background, here is my background. I heard about this vote from a friend, and I have used Wikipedia to get information. I was not a member until today. I voted “keep” because start up religious approaches like this are all small when they start, and because America is undergoing significant religious change now. Anyone with an interest in America, it’s politics, domestic and international policy, even it’s environmental laws must look at the influence of religion. A recent major poll found that one of religious categories that has grown the most in the past decade has been those people who put “none” when asked for their religion. Data for over 30 years has shown that moderate forms of Christianity are shrinking (such as Episcopal), while fundamentalist forms are growing rapidly (like Pentecostal). Many of those moderate Christians leave Christianity completely, and end up in groups like Universism. This listing is as relevant as Methodist or Presbyterian because they may represent an important social trend. My two cents. -Equinox2
    • Sure, nobody is saying that there is anything wrong with groups trying to get publicity. Happens all the time, and as you say, every institution has to start somewhere. But Wikipedia isn't about free publicity for groups that are trying to establish themselves. Its about giving people accurate, trustworthy, objective information about the things that are already notable and important. --BM 20:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • BM- Please don't put words in my mouth. It isn't nice. I didn't say that this is about "getting publicity". I said that is part of a relevant social trend. I agree with you that accurate, trustworthy, objective information is important, and that's why a relevant social trend should stay up - people are going to hear all kinds of stories about Universism, and need to have wikipedia there to provide good information. Take care- Equinox2
    • Equinox2, sorry I misread your comment. I didn't intend to be snarky. But you still aren't understanding. Wikipedia is not about documenting new social trends because the editors think they are "important" in the sense of something positive that should be encouraged. That would put the editors into the position of deciding what constitutes notability on the basis of their person POV on politics, religion, philosophy, etc. That isn't it. Importance and notability must be much more objective concepts, on which there can be NPOV agreement. Is this objectively a significant enough trend/idea/etc in terms of numbers, impact to date, etc, to warrant an article? Not: do the current cadre of editors think this is cool. There are literally millions of Web sites, organizations, groups, etc created by people just in the United States. Every one of 6 billion people on the planet has ideas, personal philosophies, history, and experiences that are slightly different than everybody else. Wikipedia must decide which of these have actually become significant enough to warrant an article. There can't be 6 billion articles in the Wikipedia. For example, did you know that, according to Alexa, there are 718,270 web-sites with more traffic than universist.org? Should Wikipedia have 718,270 articles on all of the web sites that are bigger? No doubt the people involved in those web sites think they are important, too. Should Wikipedia have an article on everything the Birmingham Weekly decides to write about some week?
    • I'm sorry but universist.org is not about sex nor is it commercial. Were it judged against philosophy sites it would do much better. Further, the traffic from its forum was recently moved to faithless.org. Deist
  • Delete: The sockpuppets have convinced me. DCEdwards1966 21:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for specifying what your reason was, now we know to discount your vote. The issue is: does Universism deserve an article here? The only way to answer that question is to address whether it has grown big enough or not, which is what BM does at the top of this page. Either you think it is or isn't (big). Deist
  • Nope. Not big. Delete and ban the @$#&^% sockpuppet accounts. - Lucky 6.9 22:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for specifying what your reason was, now we know to discount your vote. The issue is: does Universism deserve an article here? The only way to answer that question is to address whether it has grown big enough or not, which is what BM does at the top of this page. Either you think it is or isn't (big). Deist
    • Well there are two ways this article could be justified. One is as a a philosophical idea. We have many articles, such as pantheism, where we don't ask, How many patheists are there? Since many Hindues are pantheists, there are probably hundreds of millions, at least, but that isn't why we have an article on it. It is a significant idea because it is logically distinct and because it has been discussed intensively for a long time. Universism isn't like this. It is a re-arrangement of many familiar concepts and is not original or distinct. Even if it were, there would need to be the impramatur of some scholarly authorities behind it: books, articles, debates, critical reviews. A new name for an old soup doesn't get it in the recipe book. Besides, nobody can say anything about universism other than Ford Vox because it is his personal philosophy labelled as an -ism. He might as well have called it voxism, but that isn't as catchy, and probably too egotistical even for him. The other way for universism to get in the Wikipedia is as a significant social movement. What makes a social movement significant? Editors will decide for themselves, but being in the top million web sites isn't enough. For me, it has to be the top 10,000, anyway. 5000 members doesn't do it, either, and that is granting that they are all real members and not just people who signed the guest book on the web site. There are hundreds of *single* congregations in the country that are bigger than that. There are single mega-churches with tens of thousands of members. We don't have articles on them. An entire religion that could fit in the banquet hall of medium-size hotel is tiny, tiny, tiny. If we had an article on every schismatic group that size, the Wikipedia might as well just become the Wikipedia of Religious Sects. A few hundred meetup groups, most of which have no organizer and have never met, doesn't impress me either. 682 events: that is a testimony to the success of meetup.com, but they have knitting groups that have had more events. This is small, small, small. I don't mean to belittle you -- well, yes I do, but I don't mean to be insulting -- but this is an order of magnitude beneath being significant enough. --BM 22:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC).
      • I'm sorry this post again demonstrates you have no credibility on the subject to be leading a delete crusade. You say it's just the views of Ford Vox made an -ism and it might as well have been named Voxism. Vox has stated on the site that Universism doesn't describe his own particular views, that's not what it's about, it's about describing the attitude a group of people share, and there are more open minded every day who find the description and the community and realize this describes them. It focuses on what unites, not what divides. And what is your point about knitting being more popular than Universism? Of course it is. Why do you think this is of note? Hotdogs and stuffed animals are more popular too. You seem to forget we're talking about a postmodern religion movement, that's pretty esoteric. The kind of thing you find in encylopedias. But I guarandamntee you this is the most successful postmodern religion movement in decades, if not ever. Deist
      • It isn't even as big as the brights, which is very similar. Incidentally, I note from meetup.org that many of the same people sign-up for the bright meetups and the universist meet-ups. Speaking of the brights, why am I not protesting that article? Well, I admit I think that article might be better merged in somewhere, but I'm more comfortable with the significance of that since it has many very well known thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, writing in the, e.g. the New York Times, that they are brights. So, there's another way for you to convince us, Deist, my friend. Well know scholars, scientists, etc. would be my preference. But, you know, celebrity endorsements like Tom Cruise and John Travolta for the Scientologists, might persuade someone. Vox seems like a pretty energetic guy. Maybe he should turn his efforts to picking up a Hollywood endorsement, or maybe a pro football player, or, how about maybe a Sport Illustrated swimsuit model? --BM 00:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • The core ideas and emphasis are different that Bright. Bright is very 1750. It's atheism (rejection of supernatural) and the scientific method, that's it. What you might call modernism. Universism is very 2004. It's a little modern and a little pomo. We've come around the bend and realized that religion is trying to get at something real (on the ethereal plane or the mental plane we don't know), and trying to figure out how humanity can do that safely. Religious Truth has to be relative to the individual - that's a central message. This is actually an entirely new concept in any one religion, until Universism there was no religion denying group Truth and endorsing individual variety in Truth. As for the lack of big media, Bright started because Paul and Mynga announced their plan at an atheist meeting attended by Dennett who decided to write about it. The article in the New York Times made Bright. It was a media phenomenon. Universism has grown ground up, and furthermore without any built-in base. It is not a replacement name for any built-in constituency such as atheist. Universism is neither atheist or deist. It's its own thing, and each new Universist has to read it and decide if it fits them or not.Deist
        • A little porno, eh? You definitely need a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model endorsement, then. So you don't think the brights are post-modern? How about the Wiccans -- 5500 meetup events. Very post-modern, very. --BM 00:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The whining demonstrates the lack. Wyss 00:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Universism is VERY real and an important part of our world's future! I don't believe in Christianity, but I don't think it should be removed from the encyclopedia!!! I am a Universist and I am clear across the country from Birmingham, Alabama. Everything starts somewhere! --Note: LilCarolyn has just two edits, both to this page.
  • Keep. If the BBC thinks that it's for real, then I would leave it in. Any NPOV issues should be resolved outside the VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 00:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • George, you need to read the BBC interview; they were mocking the guy, which wasn't hard.
      • They were not, apparently you don't know the british very well. They were just trying to keep the intereview lively and lighten up when it got too serious. Deist
        • Even if they were mocking him, they still found the subject notable enough to report on. But they weren't. We Brits have this thing called "irony." You may not be familiar with it. We consider it a more sophisticated way to convey humour. (BTW please sign your comments.) [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • As I read it, they found the thing a bit of a hoot, some bizarre Internet phenomenon, and lets give this geek all the rope he needs to make him look as geeky as possible. Look at the photo of the guy! Is that a respectful photo? Like covering a Star Trek convention, not because you think its serious or significant in any way but because it'll amuse the readers. The universists are so publicity-crazy they're proud of the article. Incidentally, I'm British. --BM 01:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Dude, you're getting pathetic, and I'm getting pathetic responding to every naysayer on this page (but I have this typing addiction). It is so obvious you have an agenda - namely, you think Universism is crap and doesn't deserve an article. To argue your point you began by saying it was just me and my homepage, and now you're resorting to questionable interpretations of the agendas of BBC reporters. Give it a rest. You were wrong. Universism has grown hugely in the year since I posted the original wikipedia article that factually described it. Regardless of whether it deserved an article then, it does now. End of story. Deist
          • Oh no, you're on to me. Yes, I admit it. I think Universism is crap and doesn't deserve an article. And I thought I was so carefully hiding it! Of course it's grown "hugely" since you posted the article. When you posted the article, it was at zero (which didn't give you any pause, apparently). It has increased infinitely since then. Dude. --BM 02:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • "What makes Universism different from being an agnostic?"; "Universism doesn't suggest any answers to the 'big questions'. Does it place a lot of importance on "the Search"?"; "How did you find out about Universism and why did it make sense to you?"; these sound like a regular interview questions to me. I suggest you read some Economist articles to see how the British inject humour into serious articles. Not that every Brit has a sense of humour, of course. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It's not exactly hard to get 5000 random people to enter their names on your website, or to boost your Google hits by spamming your week-old religion across various user-contributed websites (like this one, as noted above). -Sean Curtin 00:52, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? You do know we're talking about a postmodern religion here, nothing free is being offered, in fact work is being offered. Deist
  • FYI, another group who has found Universism significant enough to deal with is the most powerful Christian Right organization in the United States, Focus on the Family. Read about it here. Deist
  • Delete: promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Right, again, I'm sorry Ford Vox does actually promote what he stands for. I know that's not respectable. The guy is driven though, you gotta admit. deist
    • Yeah, as someone said up above, he is an insanely active promoter. That was one of the universist supporters. Posting your new religion on the wikipedia a week after you dream it up goes a bit beyond even "insanely active promoter", I would say. --BM 02:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I started this article over a year ago, when a more appropriate time would have been - now. Sorry about that. Let's move on. Deist
  • Delete. I'd like to give whichever admin ends up interpreting the results of this vote a barnstar. Ambi 02:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It is very apparent that there is a wide-spread support for this movement. People who look upon this as advocacy are missing the merits of pluralism and inclusion. Saying that it is just the product of someones webpage of a few months ago is simply naive or misleading. --Oolitic 01:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) --Note: Oolitic has two edits, both to this page.]]
  • Delete. Self-promotion, and I don't like all these sockpuppets trying to subvert Wikipedia. Jayjg 03:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ford Vox is a master of self-promotion. If "universism" deserves an article, so does my organization (which has over 2600 members) -- but I realize that just having a new idea or a (relatively) small group of supporters doesn't cut it. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was "speedy deleted" a couple times for posting stuff like this. If you do a Google search, you'll find that Vox self-promotes all over the place, but since he routinely employs dirrefernt names, it can be difficult to grasp the true extent of his efforts. --Nat 04:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break inserted in order to get each section below the 32KB limit

  • Keep For those of you who are insisting that Wikipedia is an accurate and objective resource, you are seriously delusional. Wikipedia says that itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia) [I don't agree with many of its touted strengths, but am glad to see a page urging caution] Check out the abortion article for a terrible instance of an article trying to be neutral but failing. Notice it describes the procedure (the "destruction" of the fetus...nice neutral word there), side-effects (psychological and physical--both bad), and has brief notes on differences in laws around the world and notes it is controversial. Well, what about its damn history? Let's see....gee, why did women agitate so damn much for abortion rights? Roe v. Wade, 1973, what was the meaning of that to feminism....and we can talk about that historically without taking a stance. What a hideous article. As a college teacher, I tell students they sure as hell better not use this site as a source for papers or any type of research because of notorious errors. I just looked up numerous articles in my field (post-1945 US) and found all sorts of things that make me shudder. I spent time on two pop culture entries, b/c well, those are so likely to be accessed and I can't be the savior of history on the internet. This is an amateur site. What is its purpose? Well, it's not what you quite think. It's more entertainment than anything. I'd hardly even call it edutainment, but you do at least get to interact with others, encourage them to do research etc. But this is not an encyclopedia put carefully together by people who know how to research. It's supposedly a "democratic" encyclopedia. Great. Then why not give universism an article? It's clearly out there. It's clearly attracting attention. It's clearly pissing people off as well as drawing members. Why does it matter how it grew? Let's say Wikipedia did have a lot to do with its growth. I would assume this would happen by searching for terms under the umbrella of universism--atheism for instance? Does that make it as a result somehow "not real?" How many times, by the way, do you think something similar has happened? I used to go to allmusic.com, look up artists I liked, then click on "similar artists," and download their songs. I was introduced to entirely new bands that way. It's a valid marketing move, and if you think about it, not much different from an old library tradition called cross-referencing. If you are interested in A, you might like B. Amazon.com does it. Blockbuster.com does it. Netflix does it. I rather like it. I'm not sure I understand the logic that universism is some sort of false creation, and well, deleting the article won't invalidate the movement. I mean if I can make someone famous, say Ashlee Simpson, go away by deleting her Wikipedia article, let me know. By the way, anyone read the Nov. 10 article in the NY Times about wikipedia and the election? Instructive. Instead of battling it out for deletion, why not battle it out for the most agreeable language possible? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with wiki-spirit?

Oh and I'm not a goddamn sock puppet. I've been eye-balling this site for months. This just made me finally reluctantly type in the little letters. You should be able to email me. --Dounia 09:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • So basically your argument is: Wikipedia sucks. It's full of junk, false information, and bias. Its good for laughs. Since it sucks as an encyclopedia, you might as well let people use it for self-promotion. Interesting approach to persuading the Wikipedia editors, Dounia. --BM 10:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh thanks for rewording my post. I mean that's what you do, right BM? I mean you took what I wrote, and completely distorted it. I never said it didn't have its purposes. I said it was entertainment and could bring people together, encourage research (although apparently you don't believe in fellowship, compromise, fairness to opponents, and even basic fact-checking). I do stand behind my assertion that there are egregious errors and that this site is inherently biased--a fact, which as I as pointed out, the site itself admits. So please, BM, you who have only been registered since late Sept. but seemed to have formed very definite ideas on where your leadership of the site should take, don't reword my damn posts. Save it for the articles. Tell us, dear BM, why are you so narrow-mindedly focused on atheism in your edits of articles? What is your agenda here? Did you rewrite the atheism article out of the belief in truth, justice, and the American way? And I assume similar motives led you to delete the link to universism from the atheism page, which led you to rewrite the universism page (not so objectively by the way...using words like "seems" and "claims" is a dead giveaway)...and finally to throw yourself on the altar of the gods of wiki and scream, "Delete universism! It's self-promotional! hmm? Well yes, we have a very strange page on Snapple, but that doesn't mean we're promoting it! We're providing much needed information about some of the available flavors. Really! And yes, ahem, I noticed that the Ashlee Simpson page is eerily long, I know, I know, it's approaching U2 size, but that doesn't mean we're making judgments here. Or promoting one above the other. Really it's all about universism. And vanity pages!" --Dounia 11:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Well Dounia, I realize that ad hominem attacks are a fun professorial sport, so I'll play along. I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for more than a year, although I only recently decided to register after I started getting drawn into controversies. People here don't like arguing with an IP address. I've edited quite a lot of the articles in the religion sphere. Since September, when I registered, I have been spending time on articles related to atheism, although not exclusively. This is because I'm an atheist, interested in atheism, and consider myself familiar enough with the topic to contribute. But I try to improve other articles, usually more as an editor. For example, I just fixed the first sentence in the Abortion article, which I notice you didn't do. (Thanks for reporting the issue, though.) Wikipedia has errors or bias because anyone can edit text on the Wikipedia and some of the people who do edit are in error or are biased. The assumption is that knowledgable people will notice these errors or bias and fix them, but unfortunately sometimes people don't have time, or think it won't be any use. I take note of the fact that you didn't fix the errors that you found. (It might be nice to let someone know about them, though, so that they can be fixed. This presumes, of course, that you have an interest that the Wikipedia articles in your field being accurate.) I agree with you that Wikipedia sometimes seems to lack a sense of proportion about what is important. Often this is because of wiki politics, which is frustrating. But sometimes it is just because of oversight, since there are a lot of articles. This discussion is about fixing one problem -- namely, that we have an article posing as a philosophy of religion article which is actually a mirror of the FAQ on the web site of a religion that someone started promoting just last year, posted by one of the "officers" of that religion. This violates Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia editors agree that this type of article is not a good thing. It probably was allowed to stand for the last year through oversight. Many similar self-promoting articles have been deleted during that time. If you think there are other articles that should be deleted, for example Snapple, because of lack of notability, I hope you will take the trouble to propose them for deletion, as I did with the article currently under discussion. --BM 12:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • People distrust IP addresses? Gosh, I'd never have guessed that. As for the abortion article "error," I would have had to rewrite the entire abortion article. I'm thinking that would cause all sorts of controversies? One controversy at a time, but I will bring up what I believe to be its bias later. And on the corporate whore issue, yes I think that's valid, but I wouldn't start a delete thread on Snapple. It's a bit bigger than that. I'd start a thread in the village pump about such pages. Personal attacks? Oh I don't think saracastically imagining a conversation between you and the gods of wiki is all that personal, do you? Or wondering about your particular attraction to atheism? valid question, no? I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. --Dounia 12:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not following you, Dounia. You keep insinuating that there is something sinister about my interest in atheism. What are you talking about? As for IP addresses, well "BM" and "Dounia" are as anonymous as the IP addresses, aren't they? Maybe its because people can't remember them, a problem I don't have since I work with them all the time. --BM 12:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Nothing sinister. I guess I need to spell it out. We're going to edit articles in subjects in which we are interested. Therefore we are going to have an investment in that subject. Take away all of wikipedia's weaknesses and you're still left with human bias. It's why history is not objective, and never can be. So my point is this: who will write the page on universism? A universist. who will write the page on snapple? some weird person who must really love it and thus drink a lot of it and knows that there are 68 discontinued flavors. It's people with strong opinions, one way or another, who are going to be attracted to articles. How can you fairly make the argument that you are doing what is for the "best" under those circumestances? Now if Wikipedia can produce "good" articles, the only the reason that a suitable universism article has not been produced yet is that there have been only 2 tries at it. Instead of wasting time on this divisive deletion process, why couldn't have all of these people made an attempt to write a more mutually agreeable article when there is no conclusive evidence that this is a "vanity page?" That is all. No sinister motives, merely (alright very sarcastically) suggesting that an atheist writing about atheism and someone writing an article who started something that is verifiably real are really not that much different from one another. I think that getting into people's motives and trying to make fine distinctions is not going to produce "honest" results.--Dounia 13:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually, on most articles on which there is controversy, the neutrality and completeness of the article emerges, sooner or later, from the clash of many points of view. It happens sooner when people realize that they must set their points of view aside and work toward a neutral point of view. It happens later, sometimes much later, after people exhaust themselves in acrimony and edit wars, and those still standing set their points of view aside and cooperate to make the article neutral and stable. When I encountered the Universism article, my first instinct was to rewrite it. I was convinced that universism was not distinctive as a philosophy, and that if universism was notable, it was as a social movement; so that was the focus of my rewrite. When I was done, I realized that what was going to happen next was that every committed Universist on the planet was going to descend in order to turn the article back into free publicity for their religion. There might not be very many of them, but they outnumbered me, and they would be more committed. I didn't think too many people would be interested enough to come to my aid. I also realized that this "religion", in addition to be annoyingly self-promoting, was still incredibly small, and that Wikipedia didn't actually need an article on it -- certainly not one which was going to result in energy going into unending edit wars, like many other cases that could be mentioned. So even though I had spent a couple of hours researching and rewriting the new version, I proposed it for deletion. Does that answer your question? --BM 13:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There's a link on the top and bottom of every page that says "Edit this page". If you refuse to use it you have no grounds to complain. -- Scott UNIQ7a3f222323871a7c-math-00001B6B-QINU 19:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Dounia, you do make some good points about wikipedia. It is far from perfect. I would still certainly call it educational though. When I first heard of an encyclopedia that anyone could contribute to, my thought was "oh, now there's a great idea," but I've actaully found it works much better than I expected, due to the diligent work of many editors. I understand why you don't want your students to cite it, and I don't consider that a big problem. I know many academics and I don't know of any who encourage the use of any encylopedia as a major source in academic papers. I use wikipedia a lot, but it's for the same reason I use all the reference books I own: to get some basic information on a subject I know little about. If someone had heard of, say, Thomas Aquinas, but knew nothing about him, I would say that wikipedia is a good place to answer your basic questions. Is the reader now an expert? Should he write a paper based solely on what he learned? Of course not, but I would say the person is a tiny bit more educated after having read the article. Your example of abortion I find a little weak as a serious criticism. "Destruction" maybe isn't the best word, but it's reasonably true (certainly better than "murder"). As someone who is pro-abortion (not just pro-choice, but actually pro-abortion) I don't take strong issue. Things like this are also very easily fixed. I think that for a topic as polemic as abortion the article is remarkably balanced. Does it say everything there is to say on the topic? Of course not. There's more at Roe v. Wade, and even that doesn't say it all. It's not meant to. This is an encyclopedia, not the first and last word on any topic. I'm curious about the articles that made you "shudder". Why not fix them? Or at least tell us what they are and some of us can look into it. I'm finding a problem with wikipedia that is currently getting worse is the ratio of bad editors, lazy contributors, and vandals to good editors. Care to help us out? Now, as for the Universism article, let me first point out that I abstained from voting, but I do not believe that that any of those who voted against the article are trying to persecute or stifle Universism. As far as I can tell, your religion falls somewhere between 5 drunk guys who form their own religion in their basement (which doesn't get an article) and Roman Catholicism (which obviously does). Is it notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? I can't be sure. I fully realize that there are plenty of pretty unencyclopedic articles here. That's a problem, but it doesn't mean anything goes. Wikipedia is to reflect notablity, not establish it, nor is it for promotion, making your comparison to Amazon and Blockbuster slightly flawed ("adherents to Hinduism might also be interested in Jainism..."). Yes, people who are interested in subjects will be the ones who write articles on them, but this can be taken too far, like when the person is as obsessed fan (Ashlee Simpson) or has an axe to grind (2004 U.S. presidential election controversy). So the editors will do their work, and you can help by supplying information that backs up the claims of notability, beyond people's names on a website's list. I, for one, could be persuaded to change my vote either way on this. -R. fiend 20:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I'll second Ambi's barnstarring idea. }:) Sillydragon 09:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This movement is a worldview, religion, that need's a voice, and deserves to be recognized. It is based upon Reason and not Faith which offends many people these days, but unless reason prevails at some point the worls will develope into a theocracy. This movement is fast growing, and gaining strength every day; Rational religion deserves to be heard right along with the faith based religions. I'm not voicing someone elses opinion, not a sock puppet. Thank you. Do the right thing; keep Universism at Wikipedia! Jon Paine 02:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: The actual Jon Paine does not have any listed contributions. This vote was added by 69.105.28.31, whose only edit this was.

DELETE! It's all been said.

  • Keep, even thought this will be an unpopular vote (sockpuppets excluded). Wikipedia has numerous articles about religious topics with arguably similar notability to universism. Take, for example: Re-formed_Congregation_of_the_Goddess, Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica, or Universal Paradigm. Outside of religion, we have even more articles about arguably less notable subjects. Are the Gay Nigger Association of America or Diaborromon really more notable than Universism? It is important to promote the principle of maintaining consistent standards of notability. Furthermore, the number of adherents, number of google hits, and the BBC interview establish notability for this group. I can understand the frustration with all the sockpuppets voting here, but I urge everyone to vote based on merit, not based on spite. ElBenevolente 18:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • At least some (not all) of the articles you cited as not sufficiently notable are an annoying result of Wikipedia style. For example, the Re-formed Congregation of the Goddess is Wicca group, and there a lot of articles about various Wiccan groups. The OMCE is a Rosicrucian group. Ditto. Some of these Wiccan and Rosicrucian groups are quite large, but there are a lot of little ones. Rather than list the various groups and organizations associated with a movement in the parent article, some editors have the tendency to split out each group into a short article, some of which are no more than a couple of sentences. Sometimes it gets very silly, such as with the Reformed Congregation of the Goddess where there is a one paragraph article on the group and a separate two-sentence article on the founder of the group, a person whose only claim to notability is having founded that group, whose only notability in turn is being the first or largest or most whatever organization within an overall movement. But I wouldn't say that all your examples are the result of blatant self-promotion or of people seeking to use the Wikipedia for advocacy or validation of their groups. Most of them have been around for a while before the article on Wikipedia is written. I agree with you that this type of thing should be cleaned up, and if we are going to have "articles" that are basically just two sentences and a link to an external web site, there should be just a "Directory" section in the article about the parent movement, where we give the names of the various groups, their web-site URL, maybe an estimate of the size, or interesting characteristics, and maybe the name of the founder or leader. --BM 20:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "DELETE". I'll 3rd Ambi's this is just another psuedo-intellectual attempting to further their personal agenda.

The argument to delete this article by BM at the top of this page is entirely flawed. He writes "This page describes Universism, which seems to be little more than a web site created by University of Alabama medical student." This is patently Not True. Deist demonstrated this by emailing some Universists to come here and say "we exist." They did. That is why the new Wikipedians voting for this article are significant - they refute the prejudiced claim that Universism is fake. Additionally, BM claims the content of the article was drawn verbatim from universist.org. Again, this is Not True. There is only one verbatim element - the exact five principles that Universists agree to. Hardly surprising this would be included in an article describing the philosophy. He further claims that the same verbatim text was "posted" around the same time on Religious Tolerance. This is patently Not True. The only same element are again those five principles. Furthermore, one cannot "post" an article on Religious Tolerance, which is a major web project from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The editors of Religious Tolerance felt Universism is new and important enough to present to its readers. Universism did not have thousands of adherents when the Wikipedia article originally appeared, but now it does, and an article should exist. --Invisio 16:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Since you mentioned it, here's the text of the email Ford Vox sent out, presumeably to well over 5000 people since I got it, and I'm not part of his 5000 follower core. I had to play with the formatting a little to get it to display right, but the text is unchaged: jhuger 18:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, this is the second time you've made a wrong negative assumption. The following email was sent to members of the Faithless Community, an open web forum we run and of which you are a member. We have separate newsletters for Universists. This page is hard to figure out, and I'm impressed at the number who have posted here. I definitely proved my point, that Universism is not about me and my homepage, despite what BM's article and argument to delete say. That email has been publically viewable for several days right here: http://www.faithless.org/community/index.php?showtopic=2080 Additionally, I have stated repeatedly that I sent out this email, so thanks for the late-breaking news brief. --Deist 20:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I assumed that you only sent the email to the faithless community, because I assume that the you have no way to contact the 5000 Universists you keep talking about; but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for removing that doubt. You have mentioned the email before, but have not bothered to post it or a link to it. As hard as you may find this to believe, I posted the email here because I don't think it's as sinister as people might assume. If I thought it was damning, I would have posted it earlier. jhuger 04:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry to assume your motivations were not in my favor. Thanks for the help. I guess it has something to do with the criticism in your post, namely, that I emailed all 5,000 Universists who signed up and that I have a "follower core." You know you're pushing my buttons when you say that, if you know anything about Universism. As for your latest erroneous accusation, we do have a Universist Newsletter, which is not used for escapades such as this. --Deist 05:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • You are far to quick to take offense where none is meant. How on Earth would I have any idea that you don't like that terms "core" and "follower"? Are you saying that you could have sent the email to whatever-you-call-those-5000-people, but didn't? Why? Can you see why a claim like that would cause people to doubt that Universism really has 5000 whatever-you-call-those-people? jhuger 06:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I thought you knew what Universism was about, that there are no "followers" of Universism, and hence were trying to jab me - in precisely the same sense that you described my email to members of the Faithless Community as my message to the "Faithful" (look at 'page history'). I didn't send a Universist Newsletter about this because that is our communication of record. The Faithless email was heat of the moment. I was concerned with proving BM wrong more than anything, but still in the back of my mind I new this is not something to call out all the stops for. Now that I've changed my mind, I'm glad I didn't. I have already apologized to the Faithless Community for getting them involved in this pointless exercise. --Deist 17:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

jhuger,

United Universists needs your assistance. Someone has vandalized the article on Universism at Wikipedia and now has started voting for the deletion of this subject from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that can be edited by users. The article on Universism will be deleted from Wikipedia unless users vote to keep it!

Universism's Vote for Deletion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Universism (please vote to Keep here!)

Read about Wikipedia's Votes for deletion process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion

Wikipedia's deletion policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

As you can see, the article on Universism is objective, factual, and describes a significant real movement in the world today. Wikipedia needs to hear this message.

I hope you enjoyed tonight's chat with Sam Harris. I look forward to arranging our next chat event.

For the future,
Ford Vox

United Universists
http://universist.org

Handy Links

<ommitted account maintainence links>

  • Interesting email. This email has produced 25 or so new user/sockpuppet votes to keep the article. That in itself gives you an idea of the size and influence of the organization -- although to be fair, it is possible that the sockpuppets were waved off after it became apparent that the votes might not be counted and that the sockpuppet votes were provoking real Wikipedia editors to vote for deletion. --BM 19:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right, many have not posted once it became clear longtime Wikipedians did not value their comments, what's the point? We have demonstrated our point anyway, namely, that you are wrong. --Deist 20:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Personally, I think that VfD entries should be kept brief. There are other places for discussions of this nature, see Talk:Universism. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • comment - well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.... what does this say about the sock puppets that have flocked here? And also, what does it say about an organization that considers it so important that the wikipedia article must stay that they have to call people to crapflood: from my POV, that's another reason for non-notability - rernst 15:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I shall wear the bee hat. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Is that similar to a dunce cap? --Deist 20:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gee... Ford Vox being nasty again? No surprise, same ole.

[edit] Arbitrary break inserted in order to get each section below the 32KB limit

I'm changing my vote to Delete. Given that Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia, and having had a chance to assess the judgment of its regular users, I would rather not have them feigning authority on what Universism is and isn't. --Deist 04:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's rich, Ford. Since it now looks like things are going in the "delete" direction, you want to beat Wikipedia to the punch by saying "oh well, sour grapes, I wouldn't want you guys involved with this anyway." Nice cognitive dissonance you've got going there.
By the way, I wonder why Deist kept switching back and forth between speaking as Ford Vox and speaking of himself in the third person? --Nat 09:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems that Ford Vox now realizes that, assuming the article isn't deleted, he won't be able to control its content. Doesn't his desire now to have it deleted rather than lose control of it rather neatly underscore the fact that it was self-promotion all along? --BM 13:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Precisely, why should I want an 'encylopedia' article that appears authoritative to the casual user to be written by you, who thinks Universism is crap, and Naturyl, who hates me personally (even though we have never met)? However good it would be for Wikipedia to include what's going on in the world, in my mind the interests of advancing the cause of postmodern religion are far outweight it. Different people will have different conclusions on the matter though, this is mine. What can I say, I'm a Universist. --Deist 13:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Two problems with that, Ford. Firstly, I don't "hate" you at all. Hate is a remarkably strong term, and internet squabbles are certainly no call for that kind of emotional investment. I reserve my hatred for murderers and tyrants and child abusers, not for guys on the Internet with whom I happen to disagree. Yeah, we had a falling out, and it was just that - a falling out on the Internet between two guys who (as you point out), have never even met in person. Accordingly, I'm not exactly seething with rage about it, LOL. Actually, I think that aside from the self-promotion (which even you surely realize can be annoying), you're a fairly affable, likeable sort of guy. You are certainly more socially skillful than myself, and you seem able to remain positive in the face of adversity (usually). Of course, everybody (yourself included) gets frustrated and snippy from time to time. I also feel that you are well-meaning in most senses, and your commitment to aggressively promoting Universism stems more from genuine concern for the state of world religion than from your own egoism (which is nonetheless considerable in its own right - but in fairness, my own has been known to be above average as well).
Secondly, I have never had any intention of editing the article on Universism. I am neither qualified or motivated to do so. Your implication that I would be involved in such an article in any way is misplaced. If I don't have subject matter knowledge that is well above average, I don't edit articles - and Universism is not something I would be audacious enough to feel I was an expert on. I could argue the matter further, but as others pointed out, VfD is probably not the place for such content. If you want to discuss it further on either of our talk pages, I'd be glad to do so. I neither "hate" you or seek to damage Universism, and would not be opposed to opening dialogue with you again, if you so desire. Perhaps I've been a bit hostile here, and if I have, I apologize. It is not out of any hatred, but probably more out of a certain disappointment I feel over the course of events some months ago regarding our previous dealings. Well, that and the fact that I'm kind of a cynical, sarcastic bastard to start with. :) --Nat 15:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. --Deist 17:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP THE WEB PAGE!!! -- Note: this edit made by 170.54.59.167. Only one previous edit from this address.
  • Keep a small but genuine quasi-religious philosophy as consistent with VfD precedent. Not a fork of another faith to which it would best be merged - ChrisCarera's merge and redirect to Secularism, while an interesting compromise, goes into too overbroad a target. Samaritan 02:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Universism_53e3.html"