Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Dominion


 * 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-- JForget 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Dominion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

New article about an alleged secret society, to which religious intolerance and clashes with notable secret societies are attributed. Complete lack of sources, which are of course particularly important in this context. Prod deleted by author. Nehwyn 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Well, if they're secret, there will be no sources. Likewise, if they're secret, they surely don't want their secret blasted out all over the internet! Yng  var  17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then the Skull and Bones and Bavarian Illuminati must be pretty mad at us - their articles do have sources after all. A friendly FNORD to anyone listening in! ;-)  --Nehwyn 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * do not delete yet, all I'm asking is for some time to get "more Valuble" information. I do think it's shitty that you guys want to delete an article on something that you guys didn't have any information on beforehand. But I tried TXguy2608 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above comment comes from the article author, of course. Articles on Wikipedia must meet minimum quality criteria, including citing reliable sources, which are absent in this case. Can you provide any verifiable source that this alleged secret society indeed exists, and that it is in any way notable?  --Nehwyn 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do got a source who is the guy who first told me and showed me proff of this societies exsistance. I will give you hsi name in e-mail personaly if he agress to it. That's why I said please give me a day to get in touch with him. I'm sure he wouldn't mind speaking with you. I just don't want to throw his name on a public website without his permission do to privacy. --TXguy2608 18:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you shouldn't make his details public, but that's not the point - even if you did, that would be your own research into the matter, and not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Please, do take time to read the WP:RS page!  --Nehwyn 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All the info I got is my own research and even if i got some other sources it would still be my own research. I've tried finding information on the internet and even with local Police Departments. So far nothing other than the info I've already got on these guys, I'm sorry I couldn't live up to your sites extream standards and I do apologize if I'm coming across as rude to you it's not my intentions. But like you I to was skeptical when I was first told about them because I'd never heard of it before. However I've seen the proof and will add what i know about them in my book. I use this site all the time when looking up information and since i saw that it was not on here I decided that I could finally contribute something but seems thats not the case. My source is a man who's sister was a member of this organization back in the 1990's before she died in a car acident in 2000, He showed me a ring that apparently they all wear along with some cloths that they suposevly use in some kind of ritual. --TXguy2608 18:22, 13 October 2007


 * I see your point, but really, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for original research; we only accept secondary sources. If you want to expose these people on the web, create your own blog (it's easy to do today). Feel free to recreate the article if you do discover verifiable sources, or if your book gets published (that would make it an acceptable source under Wikipedia policies). In the meantime, you can still contribute to Wikipedia by making edits to other subjects of your interest - I'm sure you'll find plenty. --Nehwyn 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author admits it's original research so no reason to keep the article.--Atlan (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete OR per author. Kesh 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for a lack of notability and verifiability. Also seems to be OR-y too. B figura  (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and completely lacking (and never likely to include, from the soudns of it) reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, admitted OR. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Surprised this was not deleted as per CSD or as made up nonsense. Phgao 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that all I was trying to do is contribute to thsi site. But seeing as how I've been treated by staff and other members I've lost some respect for this place. I'm sorry and not trying to start a fight but this ordeal could have been handled better than it was. Thats all I've got to say TXguy2608  1:00, 15 October 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXguy2608 (talk • contribs)


 * We do believe you were in good faith, and appreciate your will to contribute. Unfortunately, the verifiability requirements cannot be waived, and if you post original research, it will always be handled in this way - a deletion process. Should your articles meet the quality criteria, feel free to post them again! (In the meantime, please remember to sign your comments using four tildes!) --Nehwyn 05:39, 15 October 2007 (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.