Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universism (5th nomination)


 * 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Universism
Delete. Universist Movement no longer exists, it's now a Foundation with a different mission that is not reflected in this article. The importance of the current Universism article derived from an ongoing membership organization that is no longer there. Universist 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The Beatles are no longer a band, but does that mean their entry here should be deleted? No. The Universism entry should remain for historical reasons. Certainly the founder of this now defunct movement (or "religion") himself, aka Universist, aka Ford Vox, should not be trying to cover up the history of the organisation by deleting this article. Digitallion May 3rd, 2006
 * Digitallion is a former member of the Universist internet forum. His post is prime example of why this article should be deleted. Universism is only of interest to a few hundred people who populated its discussion board, and it is a controversial topic even among them. Wikipedia can manage well known controversial topics just fine, but something microscopic like this is ripe for edit wars and no one can say who is right, because there is too little information about this short lived organization in the first place. Why is that? The Universist Movement was always a nebulous idea and different people had different ideas about what it was, and as reflected in the media stories about it, they were all over the map as well. Universism is a story of internet miscommunication and Wikipedia shouldn't be junked with every internet controversy. Universist 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Previous discussions were:
 * Votes for deletion/Universism -- 7 Dec 2004 result: delete (Admin judged many keep votes invalid)
 * Articles for deletion/Universism 2 -- 10 Mar 2005 result: speedy deleted as re-creation
 * speedily-terminated Articles for deletion/Universism (3rd nomination) -- 21 February 2006 result: speedy-deleted as re-creation
 * Deletion Review opted to undeleted and relist
 * Articles for deletion/Universism (4th nomination) -- 5 March 2006, result was keep
 * Dpbsmith (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please clarify. Do you mean:
 * 1) Universism should be moved to Universist Movement or Universist Foundation, because this article is now part of the history of the later organization? This does not require action by an administrator and is not a proper topic for AfD. Or, are you saying
 * 2) Universism has never been important enough to merit an encyclopedia article, now or in the past? Or are you saying
 * 3) Universism was once important, but has declined suddenly and sharply in importance to the point where it previously merited an article but no longer does? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is really about the Universist Movement, not Universism. Regardless, both Universism and the Universist Movement were important to the extent that there was an active and large membership organization currently in existence. Therefore this article is no longer important enough for Wikipedia. Anything the Universist Movement has done in the past warrants a footnote in another article at best. Universist 15:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. As in previous nominations, I have been unable to find and have not been presented with convincing, verifiable evidence that Universism currently has enough adherents to warrant an article. This is a personal judgement on my part. I note that Universists obtained several thousands of signatures on a website but this is not in my opinion equivalent to several thousands of active members. I note that the Universists were able to get some half-a-dozen press mentions in mainstream news publications, but I was not convinced that the actual content of these articles (mostly features rather than news) amounted to more than successful publicity-seeking. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dpbsmith. I am suspicious of the nominator's claim that this used to merit an article but no longer does, but I can agree with the conclusion that there's no decent evidence it ever deserved one in the first place. Fan1967 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If I recall correctly, Universism was small enough that they met in a coffee shop and had somewhere around 6-12 people regularly show up at meetings. They had a larger following online, but not large enough: at the time that their forums closed, they claimed 2639 forum members (of course, not all of that number were actually Univerists, and like every forum I'm sure some accounts were duplicates, inactive, lost password, etc.).  Nobody's denying that there was some press attention, but still: this is a "religion" with a congregation of about a dozen, which did nothing of consequence during its short life, and is now gone.  Even its creator wants it deleted. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (For the record, the article was not created by the account User:Universist. The article was first created by 66.25.118.71 and Universist did not make any edits to it before March, 2006). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I meant that User:Universist was the creator of Universism itself.  The account has been the article's most vocal defender on the previous AfDs, and is presumably Ford Vox (though I'm not sure whether User:Universist has explicitly said so or not). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to their website, the First International Universist Meeting is still scheduled to take place in Montreal on September 14, 2006, with Ford Vox being scheduled to address McGill University's World Religions After September 11th conference on September 11th. In the last AfD I commented that "It will be interesting to know how many people actually show up at the Sept. 14th Universist session in Montreal." I am still curious. The McGill site, however, does not currently list Ford Vox as a speaker. McGill has confirmed in an email to me that he will be a speaker. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Their website still mentions the Montreal meeting September 14, plus one in New York City: Tuesday May 23rd" @ Corner Billiards, 110 E. 11th St., New York, NY 10003 (8PM)." Corner Billiards??? And, if it's no longer "a membership organization," then who, exactly, attends these meetings on May 23rd in New York and September 14th? Just wondering... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete notability was questionable before, apparently absent now. Just zis Guy you know? 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - notability wasn't questionable before, it was clearly notable, with people in the 4th nomination referring to CNN, LA Times, NYT, and BBC coverage. Just because the organization no longer exists doesn't make it worthy of deletion; we have articles on Ancient Egypt and the Whig Party, don't we?  -- Plutor 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check on what those articles actually said, it's not so clear. There was an actual local news item about cops coming to eject some dozen Universists from a coffee shop when the proprietor objected to their views. The big-name media articles were features, columns, think pieces, interviews with Ford Vox, etc. They were not straight news items documenting an established, growing religion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Do news stories imply greater notability than features, columns, think pieces, and interviews? --Dystopos
 * In the context of what we're discussing, and what these particular stories say, sure. I'm saying "it was in the NYT," without discussing what exactly was in the NYT, isn't automatically convincing. An appearance in a column demonstrates only that the writer thought the idea was interesting. And "interesting" could mean nothing more than "colorful" or "offbeat" or "curious." The publication of such material could be part of a process that could lead to a movement's becoming notable, sure, but does not speak to the question of whether Universism is notable yet... that is, whether it is a religion practiced by a substantial number of people--or just the religious equivalent of a micronation. If, come September, a mainstream news source reports that a thousand or more Universists showed up in Montreal for the September 14th International Meeting, then, sure, I'll grant that it's become notable. Right now, it's not even listed at adherents.com, which is sort of the equivalent of a movie not even being listed at imdb. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is intended to judge the suitability of a topic for inclusion, not the content of the article. If Universism ever achieved the consensus criteria for an organization, then I feel like the article should be kept and updated to reflect the current status of the organization. It appears that verifiable information on that current status is more difficult to come by than the profiles of the group that have appeared in the media over the last few years. It may be that Universism as a topic becomes obscure to the point that it only merits mention among lists of obscure religious movements. I'm not sure that's the case yet, and it would be helpful, I think, to people looking for encyclopedia coverage of what is known and verifiable about the group to still have a Wikipedia article to turn to. --Dystopos 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What is "known and verifiable" about the group was contained in a few media stories referring to an active group that no longer exists, and in the group's website, which has been taken down and replaced with a single page. Universist 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above.--KrossTalk 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is not, and was not, notable, and never received any major news coverage. -Sean Curtin 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, there are enough references to backup its notability, even though the religion may be still minor. -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's a "minor religion," why doesn't it even have a listing at adherents.com? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Nom. --Holy Cows 05:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a vanity article based on the organization's website.--Alabamaboy 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alabamaboy. Since it is disbanded, there is very slim chance for thrid-party verification of their grandeur claims. `'mikka (t) 16:49, 5 May 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.