Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Universism

The Universist Movement is quickly gaining notable attention worldwide. Could this possibly warrant a new review on submitting an article about them? See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-33,GGLD:en&q=%22Universist%22 kkawohl


 * Keep For heaven's sake, Marshall Applewhite's group has an entry, and the only thing that makes them "notable" is that they all rode the barbiturate train up to Halle-Bopp. Fred Phelps' group has an entry, and the only thing notable about them is that they invented the art of stalker-evangelism.  Universism, on the other hand, has something to offer us in the hotter-than-ever public debate over the place of religion in the civic sphere.  But what makes it truly notable is its phenomenality, reflected in the exponential growth in the number of interested parties.  It is a viable movement, one which will likely carry some historical currency in the present debate.  And no, I am not a universist.  - Meadhouse
 * This is not the place to vote; most people will not see what you have written here. And while you may not be a Universist, this is your first Wikipedia edit, so what you say carries almost no weight. -- Scott $e^{i \pi} \,\!$ 10:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep
In a world inundated by religiosity, the more info about free-thought, reason and non-theist-based though, and more important, more info for those who are waverng toward reason and unbelief, the better. Chuck

Universism
Keep! As one of the 5,000-plus who have signed on to Universism, I say it would be an unconscionable error to deprive others of the right to learn about this important outlook on life. I have a "Universist" bumper sticker on my car, and am willing to discuss the subject with anyone.--Askswhy84
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox - rernst 18:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep! I am a Universist. Before Universism I did not have a place where I could discuss my philosphical beliefs. Universism is not a religion in my view, it just people who are trying to discover truth through reason and science. Granted some Universists are Deists, but their beliefs are their own and do not represent all Universists. It has grown in the last year as a movement. Perhaps, it is not well known enough for Wikipedia standards. However, many groups start small and grow into larger movements. If you research Universism you could write an article about it. As a philosophy it stands alone and I am proud to be part of it whether or not it remains here. Freddy
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You people just don't get it, do you? The ultimate question is whether or not this article and 'universism' in general is notable enough to have an article. It's not a question of how many anonymous votes you can plaster on the vfd page. I'm tired of seeing people who have never heard of wikipedia before answer a rallying call because their pet article might be deleted. The VFD usually decides whether an article is worthy of inclusion or not, but you people screwed it up with the crapflooding: people are voting against you because they don't think that said article could ever be NPOV because of the tons of anonymous edits. An article which is forever in protect mode can't be said to be alive - rernst 02:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is NOT the place to vote. Vote on the project page itself. This is the talk page, which is rarely used for on VfD vote. However, you should know that votes from people who haven't made any edits prior to the start of the vote are usually not counted. --BM 13:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another Arbitrary Break svp?
I added myself to the recap table, but am waiting on another Arbitrary break to vote in the main body of votes. Samaritan 01:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New York Times
This is where you use the word "Irony." Just as the Wikipedia article was being deleted for not being "notable" enough, an article and illustration on Universism takes up about half of the Sunday New York Times Op-Ed. I think the Sunday NY Times is the most read paper in the world, or second to something in India no doubt. I have my suspicions based on the amount of email today. No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV and was fine. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/opinion/12horgan.html --Deist 05:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deist, this piece wasn't "on" Universism, was it? Universism is mentioned three times, and in particular the writer used the question on the front page of your web site "Who will fight for the faithless?" as the introductory hook for his essay. But the article is about the phenomenon in general, and mentions several groups. Indeed, Horgan (the author) ends the essay with a sarcastic sentence about starting his own religion, too, horganism. Somehow, I don't you'll get much competition from him. Incidentally, I also think the phenomenon is notable, and if there were a Wikipedia article on it, Universism would merit a mention, along with the Brights, and several other groups that by themselves might not be sufficiently large or notable (yet) to merit a separate article -- especially not an article which they would write and treat as a promotional vehicle. --BM 13:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well-put. Or, as I put it to Deist, as he added the same verbatim comment as above to my talk page (hey, if he can recycle, why can't I?):
 * P.S. Op-ed writers write about a variety of topics. Very often they will write about a specific individual, organization, or incident in order to illustrate an opinion they are expressing. If an op-ed writer writes an editorial about the prevalence and shamelessness of spam on the Internet, he may well cite and quote liberally from a letter from the famous MRS. MBOTHO UBUNTU of Nigeria to make his point -- does this mean that MRS. UBUNTU is clearly a notable person? This opinion piece by John Horgan only proves that Universism was at some point brought to Mr. Horgan's attention -- not too unusual, or too significant, considering the "insanely active promoter" who founded it.
 * --Antaeus Feldspar 19:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Mrs. Ubuntu would be just one among thousands of names of an individual, typically fake, signed to advance fee fraud letters, out of millions of possible names. "Her" relevance to the public sphere would be for an isolated crime (unless she really was a controversial ex-First Lady or something and independently notable). Otherwise, there would be little more to say about her that wouldn't be provided or implicit from the Times piece. Universism is a quasi-religious group, with a public life on the Internet, and one of immensely fewer groups that could be used as exemplar of the phenomenon the Times piece discussed.
 * While a reader of a piece on 419 fraud would be highly unlikely to seek to research Mrs. Ubuntu further, an reader could very concievably seek to research Universism further; I'm certain no small number have. And there's no reason a Wikipedia article shouldn't await them, at the level of notability such that they'd be looking a small religious group up after a reference in the Sunday New York Times. Samaritan 14:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As you say, Mrs. Ubuntu would have to be independently notable; merely being the hook on which a writer hangs an op-ed piece is not itself proof of notability. All it proves is that it came to an op-ed writer's attention, and that actually means less than it would if we hadn't seen that Ford Vox works just as hard as Mrs. Ubuntu at bringing what he has to offer to everyone's attention.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV, was the product of group effort including BM, and was fine. As for your comments about the Times article, I can't even respond. I look forward to being equally flabbergasted by your minimization of a newsweek feature. --Deist 21:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If and when Newsweek prints such a feature, flabbergast to your heart's content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness I think you have to give me credit for most of the final version, although also in fairness I have to give credit for prompting from several other people. So, Deist, when can we expect to see you on the Newsweek cover? Have you given any thought to what the Pope of Universism should wear? --BM 22:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Too bad the article has been deleted. I would have changed my vote from "delete" to "keep" based on this NYT publicity. The mention may not have been big, but it *was* a mention in the New York Times. To me, that's the New York Times. I'm not sure what it is to you. I think that this has probably become an issue of your dislike for Ford Vox and Universism more than one of notability, which does not suggest an NPOV approach. This NYT mention would certainly have changed my vote, no matter if the the writer had said "Universism sucks" or anything else. This issue was supposed to be notability, and I cast my vote to delete on the basis of that issue, just as I would now change my vote on the same basis. --Nat 23:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't consider everything mentioned in the New York Times as in itself notable, solely based on being in the NYT. If they mention several obscure groups as examples of some larger trend, the mention makes them only slightly less obscure.   The trend is perhaps notable, but perhaps not the various constituents of a trend.    If they have an article about people dying their hair green, and write, "Asked why he died his hair green, BM said 'I think the chicks dig it'", BM does not thereby become notable.  I'm exaggerating a little.  The Universism mentions were a bit bigger than this; but I hope you take my point.    By the way, I don't dislike Ford Vox or Universism.   I don't know much about F.V. except for his aptitude and "insane" energy devoted to self-promotion, and that I find egotistical and not very likable, I confess. But you, Nat, said he is otherwise a kind of likable chap, and I have no reason to think you are wrong.  He does seem a bit snarky, but most people do when they are on the defensive.  So I don't hold that against him.    As for Universism, philosophically I agree with more of it than I disagree with.  I must admit I have my doubts about whether the answer to the problems created by religion is another religion, as rational as it may initially aim to be, which (by the way) was the NYT writer's point also --BM 23:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The New York Times seemed to think the article was about Universism. They printed our letter to the editor first on Sunday. You and Scott did a great job of removing all references to Universism from Wikipedia by the way under the lame claim that they linked to a deleted page. If you didn't really have a vendetta you would have changed the link to text, leaving the reference. At several points in this debate it was conceded that Universism deserves mentions in related articles like freethought but you felt it didn't deserve its own article. Now of course your entire premise that Universism consists of one guy and his dog has been blown to smithereens. At the very least Universism deserves mentions in related articles. --Deist 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about Scott, but for me to have changed the link to text in such articles as Atheism, pantheism, etc would have required me to believe that universism was significant in relation to these topics -- and I don't. --BM 19:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point exactly. I rest my case. --Deist 01:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)