Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Yoism

message: Comment. Contrary to Todd DeLucca's assertion below, I suggest that the article be deleted not because the links don't work but rather because the information in the article is not objectively verifiable. There is virtually nothing to be found about Yoism from an unbiased, impartial source. All those wanting to keep the article admit to having something to do with Yoism (see below) and every Google hit that doesn't link back to the "official" website is a blog, an internet discussion forum, or a mirror of Wikipedia. The <U>only</U> impartial reference is a pay-per-view Boston Globe article that could be reporting on a large club or micronation for all I know. Edwardian 07:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to Comment #1:   
*Todd DeLuca was responding to your statement that the links don't work and your assumption/conclusion ("Right.") that the claim about a strong response and/or that our site was down because "We've been hacked" was bogus.  
*Be that as it may, the link to the incorporation papers was placed in the article in response to similar questions back in 2003.  That along with other changes to the page resulted in settling these very same issues with a "keep" decision.  
*Incorporation is relatively easy compared to obtaining 501(c)(3) status.  Have you ever done or been involved with a group that has done that?  That's a very detailed, researched project in which you have to present plenty of evidence of your organization's existence, activities, structure, income, control, history, etc.  It requires answering many, many questions and detailed followup inquiries after submitting the original application.  As noted in the article, we were granted such status in March of 2005 retroactive to 2002.  This documentation occurred and was placed in the article after these issues had been resolved (with less evidence) in 2003.  I guess I could post the IRS letter confirming such status if that is necessary.  (It is a crime to claim such status falsely.)
*Though I would rather have spent my energy on getting our website back up and not on creating a temporary repository of pages to "relitigate" the issues debated at length in 2003, you can now view the full  Boston Globe article
*I do understand that part of the collateral damage done by the hacker was to set up conditions that led to reasonable doubt about the Yoism article, i.e., Yoism was put into this process in good faith.  However, investigation of the page's history would have led to the conclusion that these issues had been examined in great detail before.  Rather than assume that the "We've been hacked" page presented bogus information, given the article's history (including its existence for more than two years) this should have been brought up on Yoism's Talk page before initiating this process. Kriegman 13:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment #1

message: Comment. I stand corrected. When you remarked that it seemed to you that I was intentionally mischaracterizing your words, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that there was a concerted effort against the article. Although I thought my indignation would make it clear that I was indeed posting in good faith, I acknowledge from your reply above that it did not. Nonetheless, I am happy to accept that it seems you have left that possibility open. Edwardian 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment #4