Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist and Agnostic Group

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as basic notability seems to have been established through verifiable reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist and Agnostic Group

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Atheist and Agnostic Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an article on a MySpace group that happened to be deleted after a minor incident that got equally minor news coverage. It's unlikely the group meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG; one of the sources is a short news story related to the aforementioned incident, another is a passing mention, and a third isn't entirely independent. Coredesat 12:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actaully this article was created long before the recent attacks that are starting to hit news sites. It already went through a process of proving itself, and the valdalism/attacks stuff wasn't added until recently. The story is just now starting to snowball and this article will serve as a good neutral public reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I won't repeat the arguments below for keeping, but I will note that MySpace's deletion of the Athiest and Agnostic Group may become a much more notable event than it is now. MySpace's activities to stifle the group would appear to infringe the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion expressed in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. Given that MySpace is a commercial organization, I don't know what the legal ramifications would be, and in any event Wikipedia is not the place to argue them. However, the issues highlighted in the present article seem to be of fundamental importance. I totally agree with other commentators that the present article should be treated as a stub needing a more neutral treatment and robust documentation. On the other hand, deletion by Wikipedia would only add to the controversy. BillHall (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. A myspace group (or yahoo group, or Facebook group, etc) would have to be pretty extremely notable to warrant an article of its own, and I certainly don't see anything like that here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• KeepLook, it's been up for almost a year so before you start pulling the trigger so fast, just google "pesta atheist myspace" and a ton of news articles pop up. I'm not going to litter the article with news links becasue it was not meant to be a propaganda piece in the first place. The article had information edited out that it was given an award not because of it's size on myspace, but becasue of it's size on the internet. I know you guys may see atheists as unimportant. How many internet forums get an award from Harvard? Don't use your bias against myspace to ignore the fact that it is in fact a group of people organized on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a historical event about which people would like to remember the details as accurately as possible. This event is outlined here: http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933

If this is a case of bigotry, and most people agree bigotry is bad, then most people should want this to remain documented and open for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirin99 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I think "littering the article with news links" would actually be quite an improvement over its current state, but you do what you want. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you are right about it needing more links. I'm still sort of new to editing wiki pages. I don't think this article meets deletion criteria because there is nothing fake/spam/garage-band/new terms/etc about it. The only thing in question is it's notability. I'm still in process but there are a ton of various news outlets reporting on the group, to meet one notability criteria. It also meets the criteria "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.". That would be Harvard. How do I vote to keep this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think as an example of the ongoing oppression of Atheism and Atheistic ideas, this article has merit. Perhaps editing to expand its scope and provide a broader context is in order. I don't believe it warrants deletion, however, for what it's worth. To be truly objective, though, there should at least be an attempt to provide MySpace.com's side of the group deletion. Even if they say nothing at all, there should be mention of an attempt to contact them. Sabin Densmore —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I came across the http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933 page, which links to the wiki article, using StumbleUpon (that page has 40 Stumble reviews at the time of writing - which is a fairly established page by Stumble standards, though I appreciate Stumble isn't traditional mainstream media). It was interesting to me and I'd like the Wikipedia article to be developed to cover the facts comprehensively. krebbe (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't currently warrant an article. The deletion of the group may prove interesting and get enough thirdparty coverage (see:WP:OR) to warrant an article in the long run, but at the moment it's just a blog post theorising wildy with (as its author states) no evidence to back it up, which (it should go without saying) doesn't make a good encyclopedia entry in and of itself. Also, FWIW, grousing about being oppressed by a dangerous cabal of Wikipedia editors who are out to get you (Monty Python and the Holy Grail style?) has never been a good way of avoiding an article deletion. Sockatume (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about a cabal? That sounds like a strawman argument to me. --George100 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not part of my argument for deletion, it's advice. The blog complains that Wikipedia is "jumping on the bandwagon" of anti-atheist sentiment, which (given Wikipedia's disproportionately humanist userbase, myself included) I find absolutely hilarious. It's the sort of argument from persecution that the authors of small websites (webcomics leap to mind) use on here all the time, so it tends to undermine the legitimacy of a site's argument and should be avoided as a rhetorical strategy wherever possible. Sockatume (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it's notable enough to be covered in the mainstream press[1] // Liftarn (talk)
  • A single incidental source isn't enough; multiple independent non-trivial sources are needed, and one isn't multiple. --Coredesat 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that if one more major paper covers it, you're ok with this article? Give it a week and your wish will come true, maybe sooner. It's rising on digg and may even pop up on fark. Penn Jillet from Penn&Teller just caught wind of it and will say something about it, and Bill Maher has been contacted. And sockatume, I have no idea what your beef is but editing the original article in a biased manner doesn't help either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • We can't go on speculation; the sources have to exist now. Just because sources might exist does not warrant an article on the subject right now. --Coredesat 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • We can't rush things, either. You're a bit too anxious to get rid of this article. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
        • So what is the hurry to delete this article right now? It can be given a few weeks, or months. There are plenty of non-notable articles on wikipedia. --George100 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It already is on Fark.Torc2 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Fark isn't a reliable source, it's trivial. It consists only of a link to the Cleveland.com article that is already in the article. --Coredesat 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Fark doesn't have to be a reliable source, because the issue isn't verifiability at this point. Being on Fark is just a minor indicator of notability. So is this. So is this. Torc2 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Those are blogs. Blogs aren't reliable sources either, see WP:V#Self-published sources. Something being on Fark has never been an indicator of notability; if it is, please point me at the policy or guideline that says it is. --Coredesat 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Blogs are unreliable as the sole source of factual information. That's why they're not added to the article and not depended upon for WP:V issues. In an AfD discussion of how notable a subject is and how much interest the topic has generated, they are reliable and may be considered. While not exactly the case here, WP:SELFPUB acknowledges that blogs and otherwise unreliable sources may be used in regards to notability. If not for the Cleveland article, this other material would not be sufficient; in light of the Cleveland article, these are applicable to the AfD. These also illustrate that this is a current event, and there is no reason to decide its fate while it is happening. And BTW, here's another. Torc2 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep This is an event that is still unfolding, and it should be tagged as such. When the dust settles we will be better able to see if we want this article to remain. It needs work, but not a delete.Beeblbrox (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• that argument would work better if people were not trying to use wikipedia to increae the impact of the event.Geni 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Current notable event, and notability is not temporary. This should be here to stay. Torc2 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a notable event. There is no other news coverage outside of one website and a satirical sentence on another website (which is trivial). --Coredesat 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the article and the attention it is currently receiving is sufficient to establish notability. At least enough that an AfD is horribly premature. Torc2 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • • Notability = reliable sourcing, which there is hardly any of. It's just a MySpace group, it's got to do a lot more than get deleted to be notable. --Coredesat 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable atheist group with valid WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Once something gains notability, it cannot be lost. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, feel free to void this vote, which is inevitable, since my IP was changed today for whatever reason as I just noticed. It still doesn't change the fact that notability is not temporary. The nom appears to be in a big hurry to get this deleted. Once it hit all the major social news outlets and a big news outlet, you rushed to get this article destroyed, which is reckless. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Yahoo has tried to delete this group 3 times so it is notable. Also, it won't reflect well on Wikipedia if it "censors" the group too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.149.35 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This was the largest group of this "religious" sect in existence. Even if it doesn't come back into existence, its former existence must be known, even if it was not victim of "foul play". Regardless of if people like this group or not, it should be known into the future.FVarro (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - feature at Harvard Humanist convention establishes notability and media coverage provides more evidence of notability--Gimme danger (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It does? It's a passing mention. Trivial. --Coredesat 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The "not a ballot" template you threw down is completely inappropriate and rude. You're just crying because you're not immediately getting your way. Just shuffle this around on a mailing list, and two or three of your administrator buddies will have this article gone within a day. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not something he just cooked up. Wikipedia switched from a "vote" to a "concensus" system for article deletion some years ago because a vote system wasn't a reasonable expression of the deletion criteria, and because people had a tendency to flood VfD discussions with explicitly interested parties in an attempt to sway the vote. Would you rather that the article was kept or removed on the basis of popularity, or on the basis of a reasoned, fact-based argument? Sockatume (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Lets see, the article exists for almost a year, and as soon as some major public controversy starts to erupt over the group in public newspapers and popular internet blogs with large readerships, suddenly a few people get a bee up their bum to delete the article. Somehow it's hard to see this deletion nomination as only a normal run-of-the-mill wikipedia junk cleanup. It's obvious that many many people have taken notice in the public arena, way beyond the fact that the group already has 34,000 members which alone has meaning. "It's just myspace" comments show ignorance and bias. This article is and has been used as informative reference, although it needs work. It is not doing any harm, only good on wikipedia. Writing an article about my poo for the day is not notable. This group very much is. I don't get the controversy over the number of sources, is there doubt that the group exists? All this crying to get it removed just sounds plain biased after the facts.````Hox memplex

An article existing for any length of time doesn't justify your accusations of bad faith toward me. The group exists, yes. The group is not notable per existing guidelines, however. --Coredesat 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't you nominate the article for deletion a month ago? Or last fall? --George100 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• This tag was totally unnecessary. Nobody is casting a vote without expressing a reason. Torc2 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep apparently nobody noticed the article earlier, notthat its bad faith or prejudice. But some facebook groups can be notable,and this is one of them. DGG (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Criteria for deletion is whether or not it is notable....?? Then isn't the simplest test of that - how many hits this article has received??? If next to no-one has followed the link to here then ipso facto. And conversely. 203.211.90.164 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)pbjafa
    • Obviously that wouldn't work, that would only measure the wikipedia article's notability, not the group's notability. The measure of the latter is usually the number of different tertiary sources discussing the group. It's a useful rule of thumb because, of course, the more that's written about the group, the better chance we have of producing a meaningful, neutral, reliable article by referring to those sources. At the moment the article is just a reprint of the group founder's comments, which isn't particularly enlightening. Sockatume (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This appears to be a notable event (still unfolding) describing alleged discrimmination on the part of MySpace against a secular group (possibly the world's largest organized group of atheists), in connection with perceived religious bias on the part of the Rupert Murdoch group, which owns MySpace. That's pretty notable, and has received sufficient press coverage to keep, in my view. The article isn't in the best shape, but that's no reason to delete it. -Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• doubtful iidb is pretty darn close and numbers online tend to have lower impact factors than meatspace. Realisticaly the largest organisied group once you trim non active and dead accounts would probably be one of the humanist assocations. Okey the actual largest group would be one of the atheist religions such as the Raëlians.Geni 00:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I accessed the page recently when wanting to research the group. Gomez2002 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. This article is a stub and there is no reason to delete it at this time. I feel it would have been more appropriate to use the Notability tag ({{notable}}).

It has been on wikipedia for nearly a year, it can certainly remain for a few more months to see if its notability improves. --George100 (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - As the largest Atheist/Agnostic Group in the world, what other criteria are required for this article to meet notability requirements? The "current" news story almost incidental.Mr Twain (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And some more articles in the press[2][3][4]... // Liftarn (talk)

• Keep. How I got here: German article that links on this Wiki article.[5] --89.246.120.235 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A well-known group, and subject of news headlines. Lurker (said · done) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.