Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flame of Peace


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Flame of Peace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-promotional article on a non-notable society whose apparent sole aim is the self-aggrandizing sale of "awards" to the ambitious and wealthy under pretexts of philanthropism and under the aura of phony "nobility". Founded by a couple of people self-styled with an (apparently fake) title of "prince" and "archduke". No coverage except from the organisation's own website, a small number of links from a walled garden of similarly obscure societies and would-be members of "nobility", and a few mentions in local papers reporting on some of the award "ceremonies" and social events. No independent reliable coverage that I can find. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These are fairly serious allegations. The genealogy seems valid, for what it is worth. Have you checked the German-language sources? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, the guy seems to be a fifth-generation descendant of Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany and as such an eighth-generation descendant of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. However, according to the very genealogy website you cited, the only confirmation that website found for his claimed titles of "archduke" and "prince" was a private e-mail from himself. According to our own article about his grandfather, Archduke Anton of Austria, his father was considered "fallen for marriage not equal" (meaning that according to the self-defined rules of their noble house, their princely titles would be void in the following generations). Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage 2008 lists Sandor only as "Count of Habsburg". Plus, of course, in Austria itself (where he apparently now lives), using these titles has been illegal since 1919. Another interesting factbite is that the couple are also self-styled "royal protectors"  of the "Sovereign Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem – Knights of Malta" – not, of course, of the highly notable actual Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but one of innumerable obscure, phony spin-off organizations with little or no actual pedigree that claim the same heritage (this thesis makes for some entertaining reading). This is ironic, since the same phony organization also claims  that in order to qualify as a "true" hospitallers order one needs to have the "royal protection" of "the head of a surviving and recognized royal family" - and whatever Mr Sandor H. is, he is most definitely not the "head" of anything.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the German sources? There appear to be quite a lot of news items of the ribbon-cutting ceremony variety that discuss the organization. Again, it is best not to make assertions that may be considered defamatory, and could involve Wikipedia in legal costs. You may want to tone down your remarks above. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What German sources? Most of the ones listed in the article are just the society's own website (and yes, of course I checked that). Beyond that, all I can see is minor local news outlets mentioning this or that individual "award" – as you rightly say, "ribbon-cutting ceremony variety" articles, but never anything that discusses the award or the organization behind it in depth and from an independent perspective, beyond simply copying what is evidently its own publicity blurb from its own press releases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable. Independent sources in German include . This is just a sample – I got bored plugging through the search results. Other languages would presumably throw up even more. The organization gets substantial attention from the press, governments and so on. Whether it achieves all that much is irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's precisely the kind of low-quality sources I was speaking about. Let's go through a few, in the order you cited them: : minor local-area newspaper, text (under "zur Sache") clearly based on organisation's own press release, no sign of independent journalistic work; not independent journalistic coverage at all, but a self-published website of an organization that evidently co-sponsored the event; : the closest so far to "reliable" coverage, but still only five sentences in passing (in a notorious right-wing weekly), and still no signs of independent journalistic work beyond summarizing a press release;  not a journalistic source, but a press release by a local village volunteer-firefighters' club, again itself the organization co-sponsoring the event (and, unsurprisingly, the coverage of the "Flame of Peace" is almost literally identical with that found in other sources, proving again that it's just copying their own press release blurb); : similar situation; self-published and self-advertising website by the venue hosting the event; : again, same situation (self-published website of the school receiving the "award"). Do I have to go on? I, too, am getting bored plugging through your citations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I picked a sample of sources that seem reliable and independent from the search results, without restricting them to newspapers. The first ones are: Polish Embassy in Bern, Bezirksblätter Niederösterreich (newspaper), Katholische Militärseelsorge (military chaplaincy), Die Weltwoche (news magazine), Marktgemeinde Ernstbrunn (municipality), Kunstgalerie Bachlechner (art gallery), DaVinci Schule am Gut (school), Salz TV (TV station), Vienna Online (city government portal), Salzkammergut Rundblick (news site). Again, there are many more. The organization and its activities get plenty of attention, as one would expect. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you missed is that with the exception of the Weltwoche, all the other serious-sounding ones are themselves participants (co-sponsors or hosts of the events in question and/or recipients of the "awards"), and as such disqualified as "independent coverage". This goes for the embassy, the military chaplaincy, the municipality, the art gallery and so on. All the remaining "news sites" are utterly obscure local outlets with no independent journalistic work, as can be seen, for example, from the fact that this and this site are reporting not only on the same event but with the exact same text. Are you seriously suggesting that these kinds of rubbish sources bestow notability? This is no more than the kind of coverage you'd get for any local rabbit-breeding club. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call the non-newspaper sources "rubbish sources". The organization is notable for what it does, and they are reliable sources for those activities. There are of course many news sources that describe the same events and activities of Flamme des Friedens. Some are affiliated and will carry the same story. I would not call Bezirksblätter "utterly obscure". Regionalmedien Austria is the highest circulation newspaper chain in Austria. Do we need another twenty sources? Forty? They are available. I do not understand this frantic attempt to discredit this well-known and very visible Austrian non-profit organization. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Still think that?♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAILN, All of the references provided in the article are primary sources from the organization itself and a news search turns up some routine coverage of events which adds to venerability somewhat but doesn't suggest notability per WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend listing this organization a directory wiki like Wikicompany but not notable int he encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the nominator insists on removing the lists of recipients and removing sources, People please take this into consideration when reviewing this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems notable and well-supported. I think Wikipedia should do all it can to support peace, worldwide. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:N and is well supported through various sources ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 22:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination appears to be a valid criticism of the organisation, but that's not at all the same thing as a criticism of its validity for a WP article reporting on that organisation. I have yet to see a valid reason to delete the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jaguar. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:N. Andy Dingley has hit the nail on the head with what is going on here. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andy.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jaguar & Andy Dingley. Lots of reliable sources cover the organisation, so it passes WP:N and meets GNG for me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could I aso suggest a snow close on this - it's only going to end one way, given the number and strength of sources used... - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there some way to purge the derogatory remarks from the front of this proposal? I see absolutely no justification for them, no mention in the press of anything dubious about the organization, which seems to be dull but worthy. We normally purge attack articles... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Wholly unjustified derogatory remarks and bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - when the article is unstable, it's best to ignore it and focus on its potential state to be improved. I typed "flamme des friedens" into Google News and got a ton of hits in German sources. In my view, the major players in the debate need to go to WP:DRN and calm down a notch - I do not see the existence (or not) of this article as being of life-or-death importance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "A ton of hits"? There are 16 links in that list, of which the large majority are completely unrelated to the topic of this article; one is a mere press release mirrored on a news site with an explicit disclaimer that it's merely that; one is yet another copy of the same report in a local news outlet we've already mentioned; one is a portrait of one of the people involved (in another local outlet) that mentions the "flame of peace" only in passing. I count two links in that list that just might be useable. "A ton", indeed. Irresponsibly sloppy work, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are upset or angry over editors disagreeing with you, you may wish to consider a short wikibreak, then taking the issue to WP:DRN. It's a lovely sunny day around here - enjoy the spring weather outside. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spare us your condescending rubbish. I just showed how utterly sloppy and irresponsible your own reasoning here has been; if you have nothing to say in your defense, just go away and be ashamed of yourself rather than belittling the work of people who are trying to uphold encyclopedic quality here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)s
 * I'm sure we're all grateful, Fut.Perf., for your efforts to "uphold encyclopedic quality". But I'm not sure that justifies such a vile and ill-mannered retort. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (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.