Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Ethiopian Order of Saint Mary of Zion


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Ethiopian Order of Saint Mary of Zion

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Contested because "notable, many ghits". Bizarrely, there are only 71 Google hits, which after excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors boils down to 16 distinct Google hits, no Google News hits, 1 Google books hit and no Google scholar hits. Since the article gives no indication of notability either, there is no reason to suppose that this order meets the WP:NOTE guideline. Fram (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) :: Just added some sources, search continues. --Yopie 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Keep I'm not up to date on the present situation in Ethiopia. If the people who established the order are, in fact, the genuine monarchs of that nation I would think that an order established by them should be notable enough. Redddogg (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Order established by genuine monarch, same notability as for example Blood of Jesus Christ (military order) or Argonauts of Saint Nicholas.Wiki is not paper and ghits test is not objective. Do you searched in other languages? --Yopie 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the notability even if they were established by genuine monarchs (since notability is not inherited but must be established on its own), but the order is established by a Crown Prince of a royal house in exile, not by a "genuine monarch". Ethiopia is a republic. An "Imperial Decree" by an emperor without a country hsa little value (or at least not much international recognition). Fram (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "Ghits is not objective": you were the one that removed the Prod because there were "many ghits". You did not provide any evidence for that claim, while I showed the opposite to be true. And searching in other languages: if you want this article to be kept, you will have to do a minimal effort, like telling us what weshould be searching for. The artcile doesn't give a translation, nor does any of the ghits. How are we supposed to know what search term in what other language we are supposed to use? You ahev to give us some evidence of notability, not empty claims. Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the only claim to notability wouldn't be sufficient even if sourced. Exiled Monarchs can write proclamations every day, but they are not notable, hence the lack of coverage even in the news.Yobmod (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Yopie. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But Yopie is incorrect, since he is not a genuine monarch, and he haz not provided any evidence for any of his other claims. Fram (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I´m not claimant for monarchy :-) --Yopie 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Yeesh. What's next?  The Saxon pretender to the English throne (there actually is one) institutes "new royal orders," and she gets to have an article on them?    RGTraynor  15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncertain I think we need at least some minimal third part documentation, although I recognize the extreme difficulty in finding sources for this. Whether the notability is intrinsic is irrelevant if we have nothing suitable for V. Personally, it sounds quite likely, but that's just my own impression. DGG (talk)  01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability established in the article, and I cannot find any additional sources. --Banime (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: not everything with "Saint Mary" in the title is about religion... Fram (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: any article related to "Saint Mary" can be related to religion. Discerning issues such as these is what this discussion is for. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Request expansion & see if the author or others can give more. Could be notable and significantSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Although past AfDs do not set precedent, there is a past discussion which might assist in moving this discussion forward. A member of an Indian royal family, given that Indian royalty is no longer recognized, is similiar to the article at hand. This AfD is, Articles for deletion/Raja Sangram Singh. Although this might provide more perspective, I do acknowledge the important statements made above by Redddogg, Yopie, and Swimmer1207. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: To be honest, what "important statements?" I'm seeing "Gee, I dunno, maybe this might possibly be notable, who knows?"  For one thing, this is not an AfD on the pretender to the Ethiopian throne; it's an AfD on a made-up something-or-other whipped up by Some Guy who had a relative who was a monarch.  There are no reliable sources about this "order," it meets no notability criteria, and quoting WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Heck, this is even a piker by the standard of fantasy "orders" - the "Order of the Pelican," a service honor of the medieval reenactionist Society for Creative Anachronism, has over 18,000 hits. . Valid policy grounds to advocate Keep are one thing; I-dunnos are otherwise.    RGTraynor  16:31, 2 October 2008 (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.