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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universe People[edit]

Universe People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP:ORG criteria for notability. I can find no matches in Google News and general Google search results seem to be circular or based on the universe-people website. Google books produces two references, both seem insignificant tangential references to the website. The study quoted is a special study of cults and a mention in this paper provides no evidence that the "cult" has any significance or impact besides being an exercise in self-promotion and an associated website. The video links are doubtful evidence of notability and on their own are little evidence of notability apart from being an amusing news story of the "duck on a skateboard" sort. Ash (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. I'm not even seeing good assertions of notability for this group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, !vote changed per Jan's addition below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not as much about WP:ORG as about WP:BIAS, and about how some policies and their overzealous enforcement is harmful to Wikipedia.
  • the group is mostly Czech and Slovak phenomenon, searches in Czech and Slovak would reveal better references
  • some time ago, the article explained The group's enthusiastic propaganda on the internet (a large website in garish colours) including spam, naivety of their recorded "messages" as well as attempts to comment on every aspect of life and appropriate any popular notion (life in The Matrix, for example) has built it a "cult" following who make fun of it, visit Benda's frequent rambling public lectures to try to catch him in the discussion part etc.; even beside this hard core, the Universe People have managed to become the embodiment of crackpots for Czech public.. In fact this is the main cause of notability - thanks to the self-promotion and weird belief system, they managed to become prime example of "UFO cult" and crackpots in general. Obviously, it is hard to find a good source stating exactly that they are "prime example" - the group is just used this way. So, it was tagged (30s work) and than deleted (10s work). --Wikimol (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bizarre sect, but they're known in the Czech Republic. Here is evidence: a provocative article in the Czech magazine Reflex, indicating connection between the sect and singer Daniel Landa, another article at the website Novinky.cz, describing a hacker attack on the official website of the organization, and an interview with the founder of Vesmírní lidé in Czech television from 2001. It is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google search result for the great "Aštar Šeran" provides further informations, this article calls Universe People "Czech Star Wars" (...Czechs don't have their Star Wars, but they have ing. Benda and Aštar Šeran...). --Vejvančický (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this still appears to be self-promotional material though as I only read English this is hard to confirm. Are there any reliable sources such as national newspapers or published books in the search results (I was unable to find Reflex magazine in WorldCat so I am unsure of it's status)? Trying the Czech Google News there do not appear to be any matches.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I cite are independent on the article's subject, Ash. I consider both Reflex and Novinky.cz as sources with national significance, therefore I added red links. I don't trust Novinky.cz completely, they've a lot of errors in their articles, but it is an important and reliable Czech online source. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For good if short info about Reflex try Wikipedia. Article in Reflex mentioned by Vejvančický is hardly promotional - in fact it could be used as a source for opinion (deleted form Wikipedia article previously) that Ivo A. Benda is mentally ill and his lectures consist of his personal delusions. --Wikimol (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the translation seemed pretty good. At first glance I thought that Reflex might have been an online gossip site, but from the history given in the article it obviously has a more reliable background. Given the promotional nature of this group, one would naturally be cautious but from the analysis of sources you have given here I think the article has potential to be reliably sourced. Certainly if there has been significant cultural impact, then the article could focus on that as a rationale for notability (and meet WP:ORG) rather than as a notable religion.—Ash (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added some information from a paper published online by the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. The paper says they are the most distinctive UFO religion in the Czech Republic. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note also the discussion at the article's talk page. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2009 (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.