Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellowship of Reason


 * 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. If notability is later established I will happily restore the article on request. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fellowship of Reason

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article about a small organization in the Atlanta area gives no indication of notability, and searching did not locate any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The sources in the article are all related to the organization itself (its website and a related book), except for one external link to a high-school newspaper. Prod tag was removed by an editor who unfortunately did not add anything to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on AfD message: The Fellowship of Reason is, as far as we know, the only existing reason-based moral community in existence. We have been in continuous operation in Atlanta, Georgia, for almost 14 years (since November 1, 1998). There are other "secural" moral communities in existence, but none explicitly claim to be "reason-based." Most secular moral communities, like the Humanists, are simply "Christians without God." There is, as far as we know, no moral community which is explicitly based upon Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. We are notable on this ground alone. Furthermore, we are actually in the process of elaborating our philosophy by drawing from Joe Sachs new translation of the Nicomachean Ethics by exploring the relationship between the good and the beautiful. I have removed objectionable references to another philosophy as a possible source for our philosophy. Our philosophy is called Eudaimonism. End of Comment on AfD message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcowen (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi Mlcowen.  You may be new to this aspect of Wikipedia.  You need to understand that notability is a Wikipedia term of art &mdash; it does not necessarily mean the same thing here as it does in ordinary English.  See RL0919's link to WP:N for more details, but the summary is that a topic, to be "notable" in the specific sense important here, needs to have been covered by "multiple independent reliable secondary sources", where again you need to understand the Wikipedia meanings of reliable source and secondary source.  Sorry if it's all a bit lawyer-like, but that's the culture that has evolved, for better or for worse.  That doesn't mean your group is not notable, just that you need to understand what it means before you can debate it effectively. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing this article remain intact, and I suspect at some point in the future authoritative published sources by persons not connected with the organization will be available to cite. (Even if the authors _are_ connected with the organization, they might pass muster.)  If the article gets deleted and such sources become available, I'll un-delete it and add those. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - Perhaps "notability" is a less than ideal term, but it is the one in use. If it makes understanding easier, an alternative way to look at this is that the organisation does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ethical movement. It is neither notable, nor unique, despite the article's unverified claims. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you feel is mergeable? -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Basic information, and an external link or citations perhaps. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet the GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not a valid reason proffered to keep, to date. That this non-notable outfit fails the GNG is not in question.   Ravenswing   07:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't keep track of Wikipedia legalities: If this is deleted, and authoritative secondary sources are later published that would qualify it is "notable" after their publication, would one normally just undelete it, thereby restoring the edit history (and of course then further edit it to cite those sources)? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct: deletion is not a permanent thing; if notability is later established, any admin can undelete the page, and in fact, if you want the text of a deleted page, there are admins who will happily get it for you. --Slashme (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.