World Pantheist Movement ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In my opinion, the article World Pantheist Movement was unjustly deleted, as it is one of the largest organizations whose goal is to spread pantheism worldwide. Moreover, other comparable organizations are still present on Wikipedia ( Universal Pantheist Society and The Paradise Project) and so far not subject to any deletion discussion – although the sources mentioned there are mostly only primary sources as well. As can be seen from the deletion discussion page, the association has been mentioned in relevant sources (including by Richard Dawkins as a renowned scientist) and only requires further revision with adjustment of the sources. I would like to ask an administrator to review the corresponding page again. Thank you. P.S.: I have temporarily created a redirect to the relevant section of the article Pantheism. Lothaeus ( talk) 11:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Temporarily undeleted for DRV (and redirect replaced with {{ tempundelete}} for ease of viewing). Daniel ( talk) 12:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• I'd probably have !voted to keep. The discussion was a bit flawed in that the nom here (finally) provided a reasonable number of sources to look at and no one really did. I'm not a huge fan of WP:THREE, but wow, it would have helped here. relist in the hopes of getting a better discussion of the sources. His source #3 is above the WP:N bar IMO. Oxford Reference appears to have a 700+ word entry behind a paywall. That hits the "multiple" part of AfD. There are also sources penned by the founder but found in reliable sources: [1], [2], and the 10th source listed in the AfD. relist for a fuller discussion. I'd urge the nom here to read and understand WP:N. What are needed are sources that discuss WPM in some detail (at least a paragraph, a page is better) that are independent of the movement itself and published in reliable sources--not just books. If there are one or two more of the quality of the first two I've listed, you should be in good shape. Hobit ( talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• You know, it would almost be nice for us to have an advocacy service, a coaching service for inexperienced editors trying to defend works against deletion, as one certainly could have helped here. I don't think Sandstein erred in any way with 3:1 delete after 1 relist, but the article's lone defender was clearly insufficiently familiar with our processes and defenses (rationales) against deletion to mount an effective keep campaign, which, as Hobit points out could have been managed better. Jclemens ( talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Procedurally, the outcome looks almost OK, except for the limited discussion on the sources by the OP (maybe because it looked to cynical editors like just the usual CITEBOMB) - the fact nobody suggested an alternative to deletion isn't ideal either, but it's not something that can be faulted at this stage. Going more in-depth, I certainly see enough stuff and reliable sources (the OUP entry found by Hobit above is particularly convincing; source no. 3 spends at least paragraph or a few describing the movement and it's main beliefs and is written by somebody with no apaprent links to it) that warrant relisting (with a probably marginal keep, or an appropriate redirect target, as the likely outcome). I haven't found too much else than what Hobit already found. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• I would endorse the decision to delete the version of the article considered at AfD, firstly because Sandstein made the correct decision given the discussion before him, and secondly because that version was mainly based on primary sources. I agree that AfD participants comprehensively failed to conduct a proper source analysis the twenty-five (25!) sources that the nominator introduced, and I don't think we should relist the debate because to conduct a thorough source analysis of 25 sources is incredibly expensive in volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limited resource so we should be conserving it. In the circumstances I would be minded to ask the nominator to write a really good draft of the article based solely on the three best sources, in their own time, and bring that draft back to DRV for us to think about.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  S Marshall The nominator did give a more modest selection when asked. As for your suggestion, it is unnecessary bureaucracy as a draft substantially different from the deleted article doesn't need to go back through here. Speaking of unnecessary bureaucracy, I would personally not be opposed to forgetting the relisting and simply draftifying this, and letting the nominator work on improving it, with the suggestion to ask for the opinion of a more experienced editor before moving it back to mainspace (the re-created redirect can stay for the time being); especially now that the better sources have been identified. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  The question is how the draft turns into an article. There are three choices:- (1) Direct promotion to mainspace by the article writer; (2) Submission via AfC; or (3) Review at DRV. We encourage experienced and trusted editors to use option 1, and less experienced editors to use (2) or (3). In this case we're dealing with one of the latter. The trouble with option 2 is that AfC reviewers are often understandably leery of moving an article to mainspace when the community has previously voted to delete, so all too often, AfC reviewers refer would-be content creators here. And AfC is usually severely backlogged besides, with long waiting lists. I'm suggesting coming through DRV because it's less process-intensive than the reasonable alternatives.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Unfortunately, I was not familiar with the procedure of creating an article via DRV. I have now created a new draft as an AfC submission: Draft:World Pantheist Movement. Where do we go from here? Lothaeus ( talk) 22:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• I've tweaked your draft and would be content to move it to mainspace once this DRV is closed. The citation to an encyclopedia of religion is a killer argument that we should have this article IMO. Please would the DRV closer unprotect and make way for me to do this.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply