Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universist movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Speedily deleted by Mushroom as a recreation of previously deleted content (csd-g4). - Bobet 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Universist movement
Previous votes: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism 2.
- delete. nonnotable pseudoreligion. mikka (t) 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom TheRingess 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh God, not again. KILL IT! KILL IT NOW! --Calton | Talk 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. delete per nom. pschemp | talk 07:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as G4 Recreation of deleted material. --Aaron 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Drat. You beat me to it. I was too busy applying the tag to list it here! Speedy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: may not be suitable for speedy deletion. Talk:Universist movement says 'Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, on keeping the Universist Movement article on Wikipedia: "If it is indeed true that this was featured in the New York Times, Fox News, the BBC, then I would vote 'keep' on a VfD myself."' It now claims to have been featured in the LA Times. [1] --Henrygb 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, well their claims of being featured in the New York Times turned out to be bogus, so I'd take anything they said with a Costco-sized grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, com to think, what you post has nothing to do with Speedy criteria -- substantially the same material being re-created. If they want to argue that they're notable NOW, have 'em take it up with deletion review. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, well their claims of being featured in the New York Times turned out to be bogus, so I'd take anything they said with a Costco-sized grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are claims that this movement has been featured in significant media. As far as I can tell, these claims have not been verified so I vote to Delete unless verifiable evidence is produced. Capitalistroadster 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
(for historical record:) As of today this "world religion" gives 452 unique google hits for "universism" and 345 for "universist". mikka (t) 22:11, 20 February 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.
