Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brights movement

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brights movement

Starting with the name of the organization Brights and its entry are seriously misleading, as it indicates a group of bright people, yet based on what their own site says: "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview". Among their member's entries in Wiki they list many people of no actual notiriety including such colorful characters as Teller the Magician and Penn Gillette. However, the misguiding character of the organization's name is a threat to the informative character of an encyclopaedia.}} StevanMD 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not liking the name of an organisation isn't grounds for deleting its Wikipedia entry. --McGeddon 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's not about likes or dislikes, but about the misleading character which is an undoubted fact. StevanMD 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The article clearly states what the group is about. If anything, you may be building a case for disambiguation. Luna Santin 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article seems to describe sufficient press coverate to pass WP:ORG. An unliked group is not necessarily a deleted group. Also, fixed the nomination. Luna Santin 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless we're going to delete German Democratic Republic and other misnomers next...--Prosfilaes 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I urge everyone who thinks matters of this sort are not ground enough for deletion, to take a look at The Ultranet deletion debate and express the same kind of concerns as well. Thank you. StevanMD 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Stop creating ill-will and a spam funnel with your childish tricks. Don't abuse AfD. DrL 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Editing other people's comments again, DrL? Don't make it a habit, please. I have removed your strikethrough on StevanMD's comment, as he did not want it there, presumably, or he would have done it himself. And yes, I am a member of the Brights, that's why I'm not offering an opinion on this AfD. Byrgenwulf 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE It's just a 3 year old neologism -- perhaps a one-line entry at Wiktionary is appropriate, but nothing here except a redirect to atheism or humanism.. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per all keeps. Artw 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This nomination is in violation of WP:POINT, per StevanMD's comment here: "No, I was just demonstrating the principle that guides Wiki. Anyone can get anything deleted without real ground or qualifications to decide." Please don't attempt tit-for-tat deletions. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, as per Quiddity's good research above. Vizjim 00:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keepas per above --Donar Reiskoffer 05:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the 'misguiding character of an organizations name' - apart from the fact that this is very much a point-of-view (I do not consider it misleading at all), are we to delete the Virgin records article next, because of the misleading implication that the company's records are recorded by virgins only? Bad faith nomination. Max robitzsch 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The Brights movement is socially notable, which is clearly demonstrated by international news coverage (e.g. New York Times articles) and discussion by leading figures in the intellectual community (e.g. Professor Richard Dawkins' multiple articles/essays discussing Brights). Spiralfracture 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Guardian piece seems to show this is verifiable and more or less notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Interesting article, completely acceptable. Please see above "keeps" as well. -Dialecticas 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Brights is a dumb name, but this is definitely notable and StevanMD should be ashamed of himself for using an afd in such a clearly biased way. Boo!-Hraefen ^Talk 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Movement is notable and document, and this is a bad faith nomination. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, seems to be a bad faith nomination. —Nightstallion (?) 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I wish the term had never been invented. But it has been, so keep.—Laurence Boyce 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP it may be an arrogant title for an organization (or just silly even) but that is the name of the organization.
• Keep - known group; bad faith nom. DaturaS 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the group exists whether or not others like the group or its name. By deleting all entries about the Brights, wiki would allow its critics to control wikipedia. I can criticize christianity: I doubt that would lead to related entries to be deleted. Wiki cannot afford to allow bias to control it, no matter who holds that bias. Impish, July 25, 2006.
• Keep obviously. And, erm, this article has been nominated for deletion a couple of times before, shouldn't the nominator have revealed this? Reeks of bad faith. Mikker ^(...) 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  It doesnt list previous deletion nominations anywhere on the talk page (they should be added, where are they listed?), so that's probably actually not relevant. It does indeed seem to be bad faith for other reasons though. -Quiddity 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Not liking an organization is not grounds for deleting its article. --Cswrye 05:27, 26 July 2006 (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.