Eight months ago, an extremely lengthy AfD resulted in this article's deletion. Concerns were mostly over a failure to establish verifiable notability. Since then, User:Kriegman has provided several references that better support Yoism's claim to encyclopedic importance. However, as a founder of Yoism, Kriegman elected to not restore the article himself so as to stay clear from accusations of WP:OR and WP:VAIN. With these new sources, I think it's time to revisit Yoism — it has a decent amount of web hits via Alexa and Google, it's now 501(c)(3), and has been featured in four publications (two of them major newspapers). Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I should note for the closing admin that I'm choosing to abstain from taking part in the decision making process, so please don't interpret my nomination as endorsement either way. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I applaud his decision to have it come here. It seems to me to be worth, if not undeleting, at least unprotecting and allowing creation of a new article. Seems more notable than some things we have here. Wikibofh(talk) 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- merge into Open source religion.Geni 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and restore, with nothing against a relisting. If there was any question about it being verifiable before, there isn't now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The links at User:Kriegman/Yoism note point to parts of the Yoism web site. As we should have learned from Jamie Kane (AfD discussion) and Aladin (magician) (AfD discussion), copies of news articles on the subject's own web site are to be distrusted. I've therefore looked up the originals. They are:
- Matt Gunderson (2004-01-11). "TAKING `YO' OFF THE STREET AND INTO CHURCH". Boston Globe.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Tina Gasperson (2006-05-17). "New-time religion". NewsForge.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Charles Piller (2006-07-23). "Divine Inspiration From the Masses". Los Angeles Times.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
- Matt Gunderson (2004-01-11). "TAKING `YO' OFF THE STREET AND INTO CHURCH". Boston Globe.
- As can be seen, two out of the three articles were written well after the AFD discussion. Uncle G 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that those two sources cannot have been taken into account by the prior AFD discussion, and the fact that we are now discussing the number and contents of sources that are independent of the creators of the religion, something which the prior discussion barely touched upon, relisting at AFD seems to be the most appropriate course of action. Uncle G 12:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted Reading the articles, I'm not sure if even the founder of Yoism is really taking the religion seriously e.g. from the Globe article: "The name of Yo comes from different sources, one being the contemporary street language, said Kriegman. Yo is also the word for "I" in Spanish. The group inadvertently stumbled upon another meaning after it had started to use the word, he said. The Bambara tribe of Mali in Africa also gives the name to one of its central deities and believes the universe begins and ends with the sound of Yo. "It's divinely inspired," Kriegman said. "Yo is speaking through us.". Yeah, okay, whatever. I think there's a strong dash of Church of the SubGenius wannabeism here. But I guess its not any more silly than believing that Jesus will make you a millionaire. But I am concerned that according to the Boston Globe article[1] (which is a local news article here, not a national news article - it was published as part of the Globe's City Weekly/Somerville section), there are only 20-30 people in the founder Kriegman's local Yoist group. Also, in the Newsforge article[2] (a news source for the open source community), one of the key claims to legitimacy/notability made for Yoism is that their central notion of "Open Source Truth Process" was developed by Yoists working with students and faculty at Harvard. Well, apparently the students and faculty don't think very much of it, since searches for "Open Source Truth Process" and "Yoism" both gets zero google hits on the harvard.edu domain[3][4] (I think the Harvard claim is based on this guy[5] (who appears to be a member of Kreigman's Yoist group[6]), and maybe a few of his friends).There is a single hit on Google Scholar, but it's in a paper about spinach chloroplasts[7] - I'm going to make the wild assumption that the religion yoism is not discussed in this paper. The third article from the LA Times[8] is claimed by the founder to be "a major article that focuses on Yoism"[9]. But it's not - Yoism is used as an amusing "extreme" entry and exit point in an article which is mostly about the open source movement in general. In my opinion, none of these new articles show that Yoism has spread beyond a very small number of people who think they're participating in an important intellectual experiment (which they may or may not actually take very seriously). They're media savvy enough to get a few "news of the weird"/"funny lead-in and lead-out journalistic devices" in a few news outlets (as I always say, even serious mainstream newspapers carry all kinds of trivial material on regular basis - including news stories[10]) , but there's no indication here this intellectual experiment has grown to anything like encyclopedic notability. So, I'm concluding - Keep Deleted. I also think that Open source religion looks like a sneaky way of including Yoism in Wikipedia even after the original deletion. I'm against any merging of text to this article, and would recommend the open source article for cleanup Bwithh 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion / Keep deleted per Bwithh's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on the last two votes
I have been trying to stay out of this. I was able to read "Bwithh's research" and refrain from responding. But when Andrew Lenahan endorsed deletion based on said "research" … oh well; I gave up and am getting involved.
Any of these links [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] should amply demonstrate the life and death seriousness of Yoism. Despite our embrace of humor as divine and essential, those links show that there is virtually no similarity to tongue-in-cheek creations.
The Yo FAQ puts Gunderson's (Boston Globe) description of the derivation of "Yo" in context. He actually did a good job of characterizing some of the open source feel of the process through which the name was derived. I suspect that Bwithh's acknowledged deletionism is coupled with anti-religious skepticism (BTW, if so, the latter is something I share and is one of the main reasons for the creation of Yoism).
There are actually many other things I could say to counter the conclusions from Bwithh's research. E.g., I think he mischaracterized the LA Times article. It was a major article that was queued for months while waiting for a feature spot in the Sunday edition and was highlighted on its front page. And while Piller was introducing many LA Times readers to the open source concept, the article did have a focus on Yoism, which, it is true, was used as an example of the explosion (beyond the superfamous examples of Linux and Wikipedia) of open source phenomena by the author, the only such example discussed at any length. And the LA Times sent out a photographer who spent a half day out here shooting. Were there any other pictures in the article? I doubt it. (I actually don't know as I've never seen the print version.)
Another example is his characterization of our work with several (plural) Kennedy School students (and other interested parties) under the regular, ongoing guidance of Riley Sinder at Harvard's Center for Public Leadership. (This work is briefly described here.)
While, still trying to refrain from becoming over-involved in this discussion, let me just ask others to do some research of their own. Even intelligent people like Bwithh can have their biases, biases that may make their conclusions faulty. Kriegman 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suspicions, but I don't let my personal agnosticism get mixed up with my wikipedia editing. For instance, I've helped build pages about preachers related to the Christian reform Restoration Movement in the past, even though I have no relation to that movement whatsoever. Bwithh 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an aside, I would point out that the Church of the SubGenius and the belief that Jesus will make you a millionaire both have serious purposes and verified substantial followings and discursive impact which greatly outweigh that demonstrated by Yoism so far. Perhaps in the future, Yoism will gain their level of stature, but as I indicated before, I believe Yoism has yet to achieve critical mass sufficient for Wikipedia Bwithh 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence of regular ongoing guidance by Sinder or several KSG students in any way in those new links. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen, but verification is non-negotiable and none of thse links verify your assertions. Also you need to assert that the work is substantive i.e. a widely discussed academic/intellectual subject beyond classroom discussion, the odd homework question or the odd lecture. As I indicated before I could not find any papers on Yoism on Google Scholar or on the Harvard domain Bwithh 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does this strike anyone else as bizarre? Why in the world would any Wikipedian need to verify Riley Sinder's or any KSG students involvement in Yoism for the article to be in the Wikipedia? Riley Sinder's paricipation and the Harvared connection was never in the Wikipedia Yoism article! I mentioned that connection to counter Bwithh's unverified assertions about what he believes about the level of involvement of students and faculty at Harvard. I countered unverified assertions with assertions of my own, that I could verify but that I could not bring up to the standards of verification of the Wikipedia (which is why they weren't in the article). So what? Those assertions were never intended to be in an article. Indeed, the NewsForge article merely stated that Yoans claimed such a link to Harvard (which is true, see the Yo web site). Since NewsForge didn't verify the claim, NewsForge is out as a valid reference!?! OK. Piller from the LA Times never flew out to Boston to verify anything, so the LA Times is out as a source? Wikipedians should not be in the business of evaluating well-established sources. That's WP:OR when an editor sets out to discount a verifiable source's statements with speculations of their own (rather than with statements from other verifiable sources). It is enough to report that a reputable source said "xyz." Unless, of course, it said something that so-and-so would rather not have in the Wikipedia because so-and-so doesn't find it encyclopedic. Does this strike anyone else as bizarre? Pardon my tone, but this is WP:OR that is being passed off as legitimate criticism. Other editors are chiming in with agreement to things they haven't really looked at. For example, see Zoe's response (below) to Bwithh's critique of this irrelevant assertion (about Harvard) with the implication that the assertion was in the article and of course should not be based on claims at Yoism's web site, none of which has any relevance. Kriegman 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think its more accurate to say that everyone has biases, regardless of intelligence or learning. But this is not the same as specific prejudice - I hope you're not insinuating in an underhand way that I have anti-religious prejudices that I exercise on Wikipedia. That kind of baseless insinuation is not a good argument to use in Wikipedia discussions Bwithh 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suspicions, but I don't let my personal agnosticism get mixed up with my wikipedia editing. For instance, I've helped build pages about preachers related to the Christian reform Restoration Movement in the past, even though I have no relation to that movement whatsoever. Bwithh 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and restore I almost forgot to vote ;-) Kriegman 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and restore Notable Religion --Marcperkel 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. No compelling evidence of notability, few independent reliable sources, no credible evidence of significant following. Just zis Guy you know? 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as per Bwithh's research. The links to yoisms's own web page are not acceptable references under WP:V. Calling someone biased because they don't think this article is notable or referenced is more than ludicrous. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Aw c'mon, Zoe. You didn't read the stuff you're commenting on. Nobody ever said Wikipedians should trust Yo's or anybody's web page as verification of anything besides what is on that web page. Kriegman 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I looked up the actual articles, rather than the Yoism web site's copies, and cited them above for editors' reading pleasure. ☺ Uncle G 12:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. Non-notable religion despite a few mentions in the press. One of the arguments above actually, IMO, goes against it: "It was a major article that was queued for months while waiting for a feature spot in the Sunday edition and was highlighted on its front page." Major articles do not get queued for months. Filler gets queued for months. Fan-1967 14:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Really?! I guess Fan-1967 knows more about newspaper publishing than Charles Piller, a staff writer at the LA Times who regularly writes feature articles about science and technology. As Mr. Piller explained it to me, feature articles of this type (which are not about breaking news) are typically queued. But following Fan-1967's reasoning, I guess they just put filler on the front page of the Sunday Times. They're not really interested in selling newspapers, so they put notices about the least interesting and least important pieces on the front page of their Sunday Edition. Contrary to the insinuations that I have been insinuating that a particular bias has been governing this discussion, I have no clear idea why this discussion is so biased, just that it is. See my note above about how the main argument for deletion is clearly nothing more than WP:OR. Kriegman 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)