Strong Keep Deleting an entry before expanding it is ridiculous. Besides that, I am sure there are more religious reasons for this article being under review than logical reasons and that is not right. Ellimist
Comment Social group of purely local interest. Doesn't assert notability or influence. Could maybe also fall under "Wikipedia is not a collection of links", since the number of external links attached seems almost longer than the article itself. Calton | Talk 06:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep It seems that all radical christians want to do is pillage and burn; the net however is a place to find topical matter on most any subject outside of the strict confines of dogma. Given that atheists are pilloried enough as it is, groups like ASV are essential for helping people find others who may have questions about religious ideology.
Keep because: 1) It's a stub, so expand it instead of complaining. 2) "Do not bite the newcomers" 3) Asserting notability or influence is NOT listed in "Deletion Policy". 24 July 2005
1) Who's complaining? It's just being deleted, is all.
2) The policy is "Do not bite the newcomers", not "Let newcomers do whatever they damned well please."
3) No, but being [s]uch a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article is. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advertising medium, indiscriminate collection of links, indiscriminate collection of information, or webhost.
Weak keep. Gets 5,900 Google hits, so there must be something to it. However, the article should be expanded quite a lot for it to deserve a place in Wikipedia. - ulayiti(talk)14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to strong delete due to the author's strategy of using anon IP sockpuppets. If you really feel it's worthy of an article, then the least you could do is respect the VfD process to determine that, instead of that feeble attempt to cheat. - ulayiti(talk)23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has it crossed your mind Ulayiti that maybe word of this Vfd has gotten around and supporters of the Atheists of Silicon Valley have come here to vote for it? What is up with persistent claims of "sock puppets" made without any attempt to verify if usernames are coming from the same IP or not. You will find that they are different IPs, different people. People who prove that this group is significant enought to have an article. What a perverted process. Universist01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually what has happend is that the word has gotten around in the Atheist community about the twin attacks on both this entry and The God Movie that was shut down twice by a false copyright violation claim. So there are a lot of enraged Atheists who are here for the first time and they don't yet have accounts. That's why only IP addresses show. But they aren't Sock Puppets because people who do sock puppets are regular users who have a number of fake identities. What you are seeing here is outrage. Wikipedia has a problem with anti-Atheist bias. that it needs to deal with. --Marcperkel15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A perverted process indeed. Whether or not all edits are by the same person makes no difference, as it is Wikipedia policy not to count VfD votes by users with no previous contributions. And by the way, if you really think 'different IPs' means 'different people', you do have a limited knowledge of how the Internet works. - ulayiti(talk)01:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the author ofthe article seems quite literal-minded, now having added a "Claim to Fame" section, in some effort to make it look notable. The only two entries are that the group gets listed in the credits of a straight-to-video documentary called The God Who Wasn't There -- a very VfD-worthy vanity article, BTW -- and that the president of the group was once on Hannity and Colmes. That's it. --Calton | Talk 05:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Its worth noting that the VfD on the The God Who Wasn't There is almost unanimous for keep. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Its worth noting that almost all those keep votes are from sockpuppets. But nice try, though. --Calton | Talk 00:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, very local-interest. We have knitting groups in my town, too, but you don't see me posting them to Wikipedia. ;-) Xaa00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the group has in fact appeared on a national television show and a legitimate documentary, people may be interested in them. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep User issuing complaint has a demonstrated anti-atheist agenda, also trying to delete an entry for my documentary The God Who Wasn't There for clearly unfounded reasons. I am familiar with the Godless Geeks and this article is accurate. BrianFlemming 30 July 2005
has a demonstrated anti-atheist agenda Since you're making it up out of whole cloth, that's not a statement fact, that's a statement of faith. --Calton | Talk 00:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia has already voted to delete the Universist article, which is an international movement with thousands of members: http://universist.org/wikipedia.htm ...I'm starting to worry about the future of the Wikipedia project. It's becoming more about compounding ignorance rather than sharing information. Universist19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Thousands of members"? Folks who want to check the veracity of that statement might want to check out the various votes for deletion:
Calton, did you not notice that all those links are proudly provided on http://universist.org/wikipedia.htm as examples of the perversity of the decision? Did you not notice that none of those links have anything to say about the 8,000 members of the Universist Movement? You've destroyed any credibility you thought you had with your immature crusade against this article. Universist01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my eyes he hasn't. The only 'immature crusade' I've seen is your desperate attempt to create publicity for yourselves by writing vanity articles on Wikipedia. - ulayiti(talk)02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow not in YOUR eyes huh? What a lot that means. Articles about large freethought groups that have proven their notability are as relevant as those about any other group that Wikipedia is filled with. Universist02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are. But you'd need to come up with such an article to make that argument, since it doesn't fit here. Where has your club's notability been proven? Certainly not on this page. - ulayiti(talk)02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ulayiti, what the heck are you doing trying to edit even a fake encylopedia when you're too lazy to do the most basic research? The Universists have been in the New York Times, BBC, major papers across the country, on the cover of a local magazine, and are cited in US News & World Report this week, among other media such as national radio shows. Oh yeah, and you know the documentary that cites the Atheists of Silicon Valley in the credits? The Universist Movement is there too along with a promotional video on the DVD. Universist02:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Show me. If you create an article on an obscure topic such as this, it's your job to provide sources, not mine. And what's a 'fake encyclopaedia'? - ulayiti(talk)13:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this group on television and is a very active Atheist group. This look like another attempt be Christians to suppress reality. Not entirely opposed to merging with American Atheists if more material isn't posteded here. --Marcperkel19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live thousands of miles from Silicon Valley, but regularly use their website. It is one of the best (and certainly most well known) Atheist hubs on the web. msallen
Keep Group is legitimate and probably has a wider group influence then many of the towns and local schools that get wikipedia articles. Article can be expanded. I would not delete the article for a church that got international media attention, why is this different? Michael Kozlowicz 2:33pm central July 31 2005
Keep Same reasons already stated above (well known atheist page, most certainly as "legitimate" a group as many other Wikipedia entries). It's certainly not only of local interest.
Keep Having been featured in a documentary and appearing on television, there is obviously an interest in the group. LakeSky 31 July 2005
Keep I also live far away from Silicon Valley (in Texas), but I have heard of this group many times and come across their website many times. It is a notable group among the atheist community. If anything, this article should be expanded.
Strong Keep ASV's entry needs to be expanded, not, deleted. They are very active both on the internet and in the Bay Area. They were a strong presence at the 9th circuit court of appeals protest for Michael Newdow. Their coordinator Mark Thomas has appeared on national televison, radio and in newspapers several times, most recently he debated Oliver North on Hannity & Colmes. The party making this complaint is simply trying to squelch entries having to do with anything that offends him. It is sickening to see such a clumsy attempt at censorship for no legitimate reason. Wikipedia will lose any relevence if it fails to oppose this kind of know-nothingism and bans mention of anything that upsets fundamentalists. -David Fitzgerald
Keep This is obviously the Right Wing trying to surpress something that does not agree with their lines of thinking. This is nothing but an attempt at censorship. -Susan W. 31 July 2005
Keep. ASV has been active in several events of national significance, including the first secular memorial service for the victims of 9/11, and demonstrations about religious influence in government. 13:38 PT 31 July 2005
Keep. Though I am not in SV I have subscribed to their newsletters and event updates. ASV is one of the biggest freethought organizations in the nation and it deserves to have a reference in wikipedia.VonRick
Comment: The unsigned (and fake signed) votes above are all from anon IPs, none of whom have contributed to Wikipedia prior to this VfD (and sometimes on one other on a related topic). This looks like a severe case of sockpuppetry, and the admin who ends this vote should note that and disregard those votes. - ulayiti(talk)21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 6 edits on Wikipedia - 1 here and another one to the The God That Wasn't VfD. --Calton | Talk 00:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable yet, basically a local club with a web presence, any club or organization could claim the same reach. Although organized around a belief, it could be a link on other articles but doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry at this time. DavidH 00:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Holy Smokes what the HELL is going on here? Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes to discussion or something?--Tznkai02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Atheism by putting the link in the External links section which provides links to other atheist organizations. Not notable enough to warrant its own article. In fact, I'm going to put the link to the website there right now, so might as well Delete. --khaosworks 05:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Do we want religious zealots determine what does or does not go into Wikipedia? Walter Hecker
Redirect to American Atheists. I've merged the content; that is what should have been done in the first place(although, without the "Claim to Fame" section, there really isn't much to merge). I hope(although I doubt it) that this will cut down the drama on this... JesseW06:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment I really can't see notability, but if anyone establishes it verifiably, treat me as Keep, otherwise, probably a merge. That having been said, I'd prefer to run a new vote under strict control so we can cut down on the vitrol and confusion.--Tznkai16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment People have ALREADY voted, and would like their votes to count. A revote would just send the message that on Wikipedia, we vote again and again, as many times as it takes until certain people like the results. Also, a vote to merge would result in ASV being entirely deleted from Wikipedia, since the information here is superfluous elsewhere. For example, if this topic were merged into American Atheists then it would eventually be deleted from that page because it doesn't have anything to do with that organization.
Probably the most notable cite is from Salon[1]. Of course it was referenced humorously. But what isn't cited humorously in Salon? Another instance I remember was the City Visions Radio show when the topic was New Fundamentalism in America. Mark Thomas the ASV president and co-founder was a guest[2]. FeloniousMonk18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
