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 delete. The strength of argument tilts strongly in favor of deleting. The article doesn't meet notability requirements; no reliable sources are provided (what little there is in sources are neither reliable, nor provide any assertion of notability); and there seems little to write about the group that is encyclopedic or that is not better discussed in either YouTube or Rational Response Squad. One of the two references in the article doesn't even mention YouTube or this group. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube atheists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural listing without prejudice following overturn of A7 speedy deletion. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources indicate it meets our standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it needs a massive cleanup, as most of it right now is POV/OR or cruft - WP:NOT a list of Youtube Atheists with external links to their pages. FCYTravis 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above on all points made. Lord Metroid 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article completely fails to fall short of our guidelines here. --Dennisthe2 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given the news coverage this has received, we have multiple reliable sources for this. I almost tagged it as CSD A7 when I saw the first version, but ended up expanding it instead when I started finding sources. I agree with FCYTravis about the external links -- this should not be a list of dozens of Youtube members that identify themselves as youtube atheists. Dave6 ^talk 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We also have an article on the Rational Response Squad. Are these the same people? Or closely related? If so, a merge is probably a good idea. CWC(talk) 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's the same group. We don't need two different articles. Dave6 ^talk 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and further justification of keepI discovered through the video "youtube atheists" on wikipedia that it is not the same group YouTube Atheists Lord Metroid 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is utterly senseless. If this is kept, completely remove the "Censorship" section, nor is there anywhere any mention of YouTube's policy on using copyrighted music. There is already an article on the Blasphemy Challenge, and this has really become a glorified article for vanity purposes. Not encyclopedic in any sense of the word at all. GravityExNihilo 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am trying to figure out how this is not the most obvious case of conflict of interest I have ever seen here on Wikipedia. Clearly this GravityExNihilo wants this article deleted by his vote here, yet he continues to edit the page only to delete content from it. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is unencyclopedic and a list of Youtube members don't count as references.--John Lake 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't follow your reasoning. If its unencyclopedic, that doesn't mean it cannot be made so (as so many articles on Wikipedia have had done) and the list has been removed. I don't see how you connect this with a conclusion that the article should be deleted. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but it still hasn't got any non trivial third party sources.--John Lake 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This topic is already covered in Rational Response Squad, as is the Blasphemy Challenge. The alleged censorship is covered in Youtube. Other than that there is nothing here besides a vanity entry. You can't make a "community" from a list of names. (additional thoughts) having gone through the links and references they either refer back to the RRS or Blasphemy Challenge or a couple of protest vidios surprisingly short on infomation. Clearly this article is a "second bite of the cherry" for the RRS. It should go. --Michael Johnson 03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Blasphemy Challenge article only covers the event of how the YouTube atheists got started, not how they currently exist. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just cleaned up the article with what time I have had (which means I deleted a lot of stuff that should not have been there). If you check to before my edits. I'm not saying it's good, at all, I still think it should be deleted.GravityExNihilo 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cleaned it out is more like it. Obviously your edits are intended to be consistent with your desire for the article to be deleted. Qed 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you will find that your edits have been reverted (not me!) --Michael Johnson 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move. I think it seems relevent to YouTube. Although, it should be moved to "YouTube atheists" (proper capitalization). Cavenba 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting merging into YouTube? That would be appropiate. --Michael Johnson 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything worth mentioning on it is already mentioned in the YouTube article. I think cluttering the YouTube article with every single group on YouTube would not be wise (not saying you are suggesting this at all).GravityExNihilo 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge merge into You Tube under a "controversy" section and remove POV rant. I'm not sure this is significant enough, yet, to require a seperate article, let alone two of them. 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (See my reason below for strike through)
• Delete It isnt a group with a stable name and a discernible membership, but a miscellany of people with similar views. For N & V it has to be stable enough to have at least a standard name, and I am not convinced that the references given show it.DGG 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into YouTube. Not notable enough for its own page. Kolindigo 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Muliple published works on this topic [1] [2][3] (and many more) demonstrate notability per WP standards. --Oakshade 07:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References 1 & 2 were about Blasphemy Challenge and RRS, which already have an article. Couldn't open 3. --Michael Johnson 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are aware of this article, correct? If no, then this may change your mind. Blasphemy Challenge.GravityExNihilo 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with GravityExNihilo & Michael Johnson. Would like to add that when this article was nominated, the vast majority of it (2/3rds) was about the YouTube Censorship Controversy. That's why you'll see a lot of merge votes here and comments about "POV". Those pieces have since been edited out. As such there is nothing of note in this article that's not at Blasphemy Challenge. For me it's a strong delete. YouTube Atheist should redirect there. Note that the YouTube page now has all it needs on this subject there under a "Censorship" section (YouTube) Coricus 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (already done?) with Rational Response Squad i.e. Blasphemy Challenge and Delete Redirect (per Lord Metroid's argument below). Delete per DGG -- "Youtube atheists" is not a group/organization with stable name/membership -- just people who have similar views. utcursch | talk 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment See above for link to YouTube group. Lord Metroid 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. What's next, are we going to have articles for "LiveJournal atheists"? "Facebook atheists"? We need unequivocal and overwhelming sourcing for articles like this; our standards should be higher, not lower, for such marginal topics. -Silence 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its featured on multiple non-trivial news sources. What else to discuss? - Denny 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be missing something: I don't see "YouTube Atheists" mentioned as a subject or group in those references. Those references all seem to deal with YouTube and the controversy around whether their actions were censorship. Is this not already covered in the YouTube article under the Censorship section and in the Blasphemy Challenge page -- the group that promoted the atheists into action? I don't see how YouTube Athiests/ Atheism a seperate subject... Coricus 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For a start, this has been pruned away from the YT article (it's not called the 'Censorship' section anymore either), and it now just says main article - here. More importantly, it quite definitely meets the standards for Wikipedia inclusion. And much of the page was not written by the people concerned - I know, because I recognise the wording of the total banning part - some of that was identical to wording I had used in the YouTube article, which was clearly cut and pasted onto this article. So the text was not written by those concerned (I'm quite definitely not NickG, and I am not a member of the RRS, although I agree with their aims etc.) PT 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question You have stated that the article meets Wikipedia standards. Can you please explain how with reference to WP:A and WP:N? --Michael Johnson 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of all topics that have been featured on multiple non-trivial news sources do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I see articles get deleted all the time that have appeared in much less trivial news sources than Christian Today. (Besides, neither of those articles are actually about "YouTube atheists". They're both about the Blasphemy Challenge, which was nevertheless recently deleted and merged into Rational Response Squad.) So this article's only two reliable sources aren't actually about "Youtube atheists" (except indirectly), and all this article's other references (which are what are actually relied on for the overwhelming majority of the article's claims) are to YouTube pages, the Secular Student Alliance, Nick Gisburne's personal homepage, and an unrelated University of Buffalo policy page. That's pretty damned unimpressive, especially compared to other Wikipedia articles which are billions of times more noteworthy and newsworthy than this one and yet are regularly deleted and merged. That's why Wikinews even exists—and this topic clearly falls far below the standards of Wikinews, so why do you think it satisfies the much higher standards of Wikipedia? -Silence 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like someone have write about themselves. This sounds like a subgroup. it is not important. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge As most of the article seems to be about Nick Gisburne(A member of the Rational Response Squad) It would probably be best to merge and redirect it with Rational Response Squad. Lord Metroid 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a personal pet page to me.--Knulclunk 05:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Propaganda,advertising,self-promotion,biased,all around soap box.Nwoob 12:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)— Nwoob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete salvagable parts are already mentioned in other articles. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; appears to be self-promotional propaganda. Ral315 » 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete youtube atheist? is this a joke? look like just a buncha greedy know-it-all teenagers, who pretends to hate religion to spite their parents, but celebrate Christmas,Easter,Saint Valentines,Baptisms,Funerals etc etc Mibo123 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just checked youtube, and it appears there are several hundred groups with way more members than "youtube atheists." As well, no sources suggested (other than people's youtube videos) have any mention at all of the group itself, but of the blasphemy challenge. Is it safe to say that this article is entirely delete-worthy GravityExNihilo 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this could be helped by a single sentence addition to the Atheism page along the lines of: "The Internet is allowing Atheists to assert their views in new ways..." Coricus 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine, if (1) we have reliable sources to back that claim up, and (2) it's highly noteworthy and non-trivial information. -Silence 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it isn't specific to any one group, due to the fact that there are significantly many atheist groups and all of which do not need specific notability given to them.GravityExNihilo 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Christian "News" sources (with the exception of CSM) are generally non-notable. Ergo, this is non-notable. - Francis Tyers · 15:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.