Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (valid votes were 13-9 in favour of deletion) -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atheists of Silicon Valley

Social group of purely local interest. Doesn't assert notability or influence. Could maybe also fall under "Wikipedia is not a collection of links", since the number of external links attached seems almost longer than the article itself. Addendum: just so there's no confusion by any closing admin, I am voting delete. Calton | Talk 06:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note to newcomers: Please place your votes at the bottom of this listing, and "sign" your votes by placing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. But be warned: Wikipedia policy is to discount or ignore votes by brand-new editors, in order to discourage ballot-box stuffing and Astroturfing. Also, please familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia's exclusion policies at WP:NOT -- this place is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a listing or promotion service.

  • Comment Holy Smokes what the HELL is going on here? Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes to discussion or something?--Tznkai 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote at this time). Many of the users with less then five edits who voted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The God Who Wasn't There also placed a vote on this page. In other words, sockpuppets ahead. I don't feel up to following this page's history and noting them individually at this point in time. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's mostly been done already by User:Calton, big ups to him. :) - ulayiti (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Calton. Hamster Sandwich 07:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ☎ 16:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyager640 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 July 2005.
    • Weak keep. Gets 5,900 Google hits, so there must be something to it. However, the article should be expanded quite a lot for it to deserve a place in Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote to strong delete due to the author's strategy of using anon IP sockpuppets. If you really feel it's worthy of an article, then the least you could do is respect the VfD process to determine that, instead of that feeble attempt to cheat. - ulayiti (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Has it crossed your mind Ulayiti that maybe word of this Vfd has gotten around and supporters of the Atheists of Silicon Valley have come here to vote for it? What is up with persistent claims of "sock puppets" made without any attempt to verify if usernames are coming from the same IP or not. You will find that they are different IPs, different people. People who prove that this group is significant enought to have an article. What a perverted process. Universist 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Actually what has happend is that the word has gotten around in the Atheist community about the twin attacks on both this entry and The God Movie that was shut down twice by a false copyright violation claim. So there are a lot of enraged Atheists who are here for the first time and they don't yet have accounts. That's why only IP addresses show. But they aren't Sock Puppets because people who do sock puppets are regular users who have a number of fake identities. What you are seeing here is outrage. Wikipedia has a problem with anti-Atheist bias. that it needs to deal with. --Marcperkel 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • A perverted process indeed. Whether or not all edits are by the same person makes no difference, as it is Wikipedia policy not to count VfD votes by users with no previous contributions. And by the way, if you really think 'different IPs' means 'different people', you do have a limited knowledge of how the Internet works. - ulayiti (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn, very local-interest. We have knitting groups in my town, too, but you don't see me posting them to Wikipedia. ;-) Xaa 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: the author ofthe article seems quite literal-minded, now having added a "Claim to Fame" section, in some effort to make it look notable. The only two entries are that the group gets listed in the credits of a straight-to-video documentary called The God Who Wasn't There -- a very VfD-worthy vanity article, BTW -- and that the president of the group was once on Hannity and Colmes. That's it. --Calton | Talk 05:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Its worth noting that the VfD on the The God Who Wasn't There is almost unanimous for keep. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Its worth noting that almost all those keep votes are from sockpuppets. But nice try, though. --Calton | Talk 00:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • I just counted 25 NON-anonymous KEEP votes over there. Can you please explain exactly how that is consistent with "almost all those keep votes are from sockpuppets"?
  • Delete hardly the NSS. Dunc|☺ 18:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Recent edits by 68.127.10.153 establish notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep User issuing complaint has a demonstrated anti-atheist agenda, also trying to delete an entry for my documentary The God Who Wasn't There for clearly unfounded reasons. I am familiar with the Godless Geeks and this article is accurate. BrianFlemming 30 July 2005
    • has a demonstrated anti-atheist agenda Since you're making it up out of whole cloth, that's not a statement fact, that's a statement of faith.
  • Keep Wikipedia has already voted to delete the Universist article, which is an international movement with thousands of members: http://universist.org/wikipedia.htm ...I'm starting to worry about the future of the Wikipedia project. It's becoming more about compounding ignorance rather than sharing information. Universist 19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "Thousands of members"? Folks who want to check the veracity of that statement might want to check out the various votes for deletion:
      • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism
      • Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement
      • Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Universism
      • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Universist Movement Organization
        • --Calton | Talk 00:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
          • Calton, did you not notice that all those links are proudly provided on http://universist.org/wikipedia.htm as examples of the perversity of the decision? Did you not notice that none of those links have anything to say about the 8,000 members of the Universist Movement? You've destroyed any credibility you thought you had with your immature crusade against this article. Universist 01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Not in my eyes he hasn't. The only 'immature crusade' I've seen is your desperate attempt to create publicity for yourselves by writing vanity articles on Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Wow not in YOUR eyes huh? What a lot that means. Articles about large freethought groups that have proven their notability are as relevant as those about any other group that Wikipedia is filled with. Universist 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                • Sure they are. But you'd need to come up with such an article to make that argument, since it doesn't fit here. Where has your club's notability been proven? Certainly not on this page. - ulayiti (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • Ulayiti, what the heck are you doing trying to edit even a fake encylopedia when you're too lazy to do the most basic research? The Universists have been in the New York Times, BBC, major papers across the country, on the cover of a local magazine, and are cited in US News & World Report this week, among other media such as national radio shows. Oh yeah, and you know the documentary that cites the Atheists of Silicon Valley in the credits? The Universist Movement is there too along with a promotional video on the DVD. Universist 02:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                    • The point of the links, guy, was so people could read the discussion of exactly how bogus are your claims of notability and how much resume-padding you've done, as well as demonstrate the extent of your insanely active self-promotion. I urge regular Wikipedians unfamiliar with the issue to at least skim before taking Universist (or whatever he's calling himself this week) seriously. --Calton | Talk 01:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
                      • I double-dare everyone to read those fascinating discussions, that's why we highlight them on our own website. And yes, the purpose of our corporation is self-promotion, it is the faithless answer to evangelism. That's why we want an article on this website everyone thinks is an encylopedia. Universist 05:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                    • Show me. If you create an article on an obscure topic such as this, it's your job to provide sources, not mine. And what's a 'fake encyclopaedia'? - ulayiti (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                      • Fake encylopedia? Well, that would be an "encyclopedia" that anybody on earth can edit. That's not an encyclopedia, and it's highly unfortunate that people think it is. This site is entertainment for its participants and it's popular because people of its google rankings (which result from its constant updating and masses of information of unjudged value) and the fact that millions of internet surfers don't realize a 10 year old just edited the article on terrorism they're reading. Universist 05:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, shut up. You're being obnoxious, do you understand that? You're being unlikeable. Regardless of the merits of atheism. Furthermore, the Atheists of Silicon Valley are a non-notable local organization, and Wikipedia is not your promotional vehicle. We have plenty of atheism articles; [Category:Atheists all individual atheists do not get articles, and neither do all gatherings of atheists. Delete in full knowledge of the nonexistence of the supernatural. DS 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep I've seen this group on television and is a very active Atheist group. This look like another attempt be Christians to suppress reality. --Marcperkel 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If they were on tv and in a documentary and were heard of beyond Silicon Valley, it should be kept.--BrendanRyan 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The unsigned (and fake signed) votes above are all from anon IPs, none of whom have contributed to Wikipedia prior to this VfD (and sometimes on one other on a related topic). This looks like a severe case of sockpuppetry, and the admin who ends this vote should note that and disregard those votes. - ulayiti (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable yet, basically a local club with a web presence, any club or organization could claim the same reach. Although organized around a belief, it could be a link on other articles but doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry at this time. DavidH 00:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'KeeP' Athiests need a voice too. Jlam4911 01:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - apparently a minor local group. Attempts to derail VfD by use of anonymous votes is unwelcome. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per Carlton. Ken 03:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep despite the idiotic campaigning on this vfd. The article needs a bit of a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Atheism by putting the link in the External links section which provides links to other atheist organizations. Not notable enough to warrant its own article. In fact, I'm going to put the link to the website there right now, so might as well Delete. --khaosworks 05:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to American Atheists. I've merged the content; that is what should have been done in the first place(although, without the "Claim to Fame" section, there really isn't much to merge). I hope(although I doubt it) that this will cut down the drama on this... JesseW 06:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I really can't see notability, but if anyone establishes it verifiably, treat me as Keep, otherwise, probably a merge. That having been said, I'd prefer to run a new vote under strict control so we can cut down on the vitrol and confusion.--Tznkai 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment People have ALREADY voted, and would like their votes to count. A revote would just send the message that on Wikipedia, we vote again and again, as many times as it takes until certain people like the results. Also, a vote to merge would result in ASV being entirely deleted from Wikipedia, since the information here is superfluous elsewhere. For example, if this topic were merged into American Atheists then it would eventually be deleted from that page because it doesn't have anything to do with that organization.
    • Probably the most notable cite is from Salon[1]. Of course it was referenced humorously. But what isn't cited humorously in Salon? Another instance I remember was the City Visions Radio show when the topic was New Fundamentalism in America. Mark Thomas the ASV president and co-founder was a guest[2]. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh for God's sake (if you'll pardon the expression), City Visions is a *local*, public-radio show on KALW in San Francisco. I like the program, but your noting that is just puffery. --Calton | Talk 02:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody's claimed it it's anything more than a local radio show. And BTW, being a regional issue/concern/group is not sufficient justification for deleting an informative article. There are plenty of articles on regional churches, schools, and groups on wikipedia, none of which are up for VFD or likely to be. Puffery, eh? LOL. FeloniousMonk 03:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Nobody's claimed it it's anything more than a local radio show Yeah, that's why you just dropped the name as if anyone reading it would understand what it meant. So, yes, puffery, since you explicitly used that factoid as an example of media attention to justify the alleged notability of this tiny local group -- a bit of puffery that I note that an editor has added -- desperately, in my opinion -- to the article's "Claims to Fame" section. --Calton | Talk 02:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Nobody has suggested deletion based on the fact that it is an article related to athiesm, either, if you would care to read the reasoning behind the delete votes. Also, many articles for regional churches, schools, and groups are put up for VFD, and I am relatively certain there is a decent handful right now, if one would care to look. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • In fact, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rawang churches is a VFD on not one, but 21 articles about non-notable churches. Please don't play the "censorship" card. Nobody here is voting to censor information. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, except for on a local level. Supported by sock- and meat-puppets. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just an observation, but that an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant to an article's actual value to the community. In other words, sock puppet support is not a valid justification for deleting an article. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I am aware of that, which is why it is not my primary reasoning. It still affects my vote, which is why I listed it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I see plenty of anger here - but nothing that address the fear that this is a non-notable local debating society. --Doc (?) 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems notable enough to me. Maybe my perception of notability is on the inclusionist side, but I don't see how keeping this article causes any harm. LizardWizard 18:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes by users with less than ten edits at time of vote

  • Keep because: 1) It's a stub, so expand it instead of complaining. 2) "Do not bite the newcomers" 3) Asserting notability or influence is NOT listed in "Deletion Policy". 24 July 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.10.153 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 July 2005. later signed Human455 02:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) Who's complaining? It's just being deleted, is all.
    • 2) The policy is "Do not bite the newcomers", not "Let newcomers do whatever they damned well please."
    • 3) No, but being [s]uch a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article is. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advertising medium, indiscriminate collection of links, indiscriminate collection of information, or webhost.
--Calton | Talk 07:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I live thousands of miles from Silicon Valley, but regularly use their website. It is one of the best (and certainly most well known) Atheist hubs on the web. msallen (User's second edit. Contribs)
  • Keep JohnFitzpatrick 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC) (User's sixth edit. Contribs)
  • Keep Keep it. Preceding unsigned comment by Schultkl User's second edit. (Contribs)
  • Keep Just needs to be expanded. JakeGuy88 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (User's ninth edit. Contribs)
  • Strong Keep Deleting an entry before expanding it is ridiculous. Besides that, I am sure there are more religious reasons for this article being under review than logical reasons and that is not right. Ellimist (User's third edit. Contribs)
  • Keep. If a group's local-ness is fuzzy at all, I'm inclined to let it stand. Can't hurt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdcaton (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 August 2005. User's second edit. (Contribs)

[edit] Votes by anon

  • Delete for the aforementioned reasons. IINAG 18:56, 23rd July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Group is legitimate and probably has a wider group influence then many of the towns and local schools that get wikipedia articles. Article can be expanded. I would not delete the article for a church that got international media attention, why is this different? Michael Kozlowicz 2:33pm central July 31 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.128.92 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 July 2005.

Keep Same reasons already stated above (well known atheist page, most certainly as "legitimate" a group as many other Wikipedia entries). It's certainly not only of local interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.5.2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 31 July 2005.

  • Keep Having been featured in a documentary and appearing on television, there is obviously an interest in the group. LakeSky 31 July 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.0.89.28 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep I also live far away from Silicon Valley (in Texas), but I have heard of this group many times and come across their website many times. It is a notable group among the atheist community. If anything, this article should be expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.59.196 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep. ASV has been active in several events of national significance, including the first secular memorial service for the victims of 9/11, and demonstrations about religious influence in government. 13:38 PT 31 July 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.207.14.210 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep Has some notoriety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.82.73 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 July 2005.
  • Strong Keep ASV's entry needs to be expanded, not, deleted. They are very active both on the internet and in the Bay Area. They were a strong presence at the 9th circuit court of appeals protest for Michael Newdow. Their coordinator Mark Thomas has appeared on national televison, radio and in newspapers several times, most recently he debated Oliver North on Hannity & Colmes. The party making this complaint is simply trying to squelch entries having to do with anything that offends him. It is sickening to see such a clumsy attempt at censorship for no legitimate reason. Wikipedia will lose any relevence if it fails to oppose this kind of know-nothingism and bans mention of anything that upsets fundamentalists. -David Fitzgerald —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.53.204 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep For the reasons Mr. Fitzgerald just stated. -Ryan Baker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.22.35 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep This is obviously the Right Wing trying to surpress something that does not agree with their lines of thinking. This is nothing but an attempt at censorship. -Susan W. 31 July 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.136.149.229 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep It is not of purely local interest. It is widely known and has generated national interest. -Sam Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.224.244 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 July 2005.
  • Keep. Though I am not in SV I have subscribed to their newsletters and event updates. ASV is one of the biggest freethought organizations in the nation and it deserves to have a reference in wikipedia. VonRick | Talk
  • 66.25.126.10 Apparently is Vonrick, i.e. me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.126.10 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 August 2005.
  • Keep. Religion sucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.150.254.248 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 August 2005.
  • keep might help make up for all the "historical" articles about chritian religous figures, on wiki--172.156.9.20 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems that all radical christians want to do is pillage and burn; the net however is a place to find topical matter on most any subject outside of the strict confines of dogma. Given that atheists are pilloried enough as it is, groups like ASV are essential for helping people find others who may have questions about religious ideology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.196.59 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 August 2005.
  • Keep Do we want religious zealots determine what does or does not go into Wikipedia? Walter Hecker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.1.220 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Keep! I'm an atheist and I resent others trying to silence me just because my beliefs differ from theirs. doubter5@digitalfreethought.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.147.102.37 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 August 2005.
  • Strong Keep - I don't want religious fanatics controlling what I may or may not read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.174.250 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 August 2005.

If I had a say, I would say delete. As someone who knows nothing of them, this article looks like it just describes a local society and when they meet. If it has an important web presence, shouldn't that be what is mentioned in the article? This is not a conspiracy to destroy free speech or establish a bias; as it stands, this article is pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.66.51.165 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2005.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Atheists_of_Silicon_Valley_b4b6.html"