Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-orders


 * 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.  Kurykh  00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-orders
This article is on a topic that is ambiguous and unhelpful and its associated category is confusing. The linked and similar article Chivalric orders is poor and needs improving but is easier to understand, and is enough for the topic. --Sannhet (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

this will create an improved clearer article. Having read the all arguments I do not now believe either article does anything that would not be better than a good edit to articles on individual orders. --Kyndinos (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge with Chivalric orders Delete


 * Merge seems reasonable if it will actually help the Chivalric orders article. Gimmetrow 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Delete - labeling something as a Pseudo-anything should be done in the Article and with Citation! As it currently is operating this Article does not define what makes an Order "Pseudo" and is only causing edit/revert wars galore on every article that gets tagged "Pseudo" for unknown/unexplained reasons. Disclosure- my opinion is the same for the relevent Category deletion request.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This article has little useful content and seems to be causing more trouble than it is worth. The creator User:Yopie (User talk:Yopie) was PRODed, and legitimately resisted, so this did not work. --Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose OK, as I understand, there are two problems. First, that article is causing revert war, but this is not problem of article or me, but this is problem of anonimous vandalism (somebody delete references and in second step he say, that this article is without references. Second, that definition of "self-styled order" is unclear, but this is reason for improvement, not for deletion! If somebody is wise for deletion, why he not improve article? Discussion page of article is only with my edits... It is like somebody want deletion without rational discussion about what is "bad" or "good". As I understand Wiki deletion policy, there must be discussion before deletion. Yopie 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And what is interesting, Simsek is co-author of article Scottish Knights Templar and probably member of this association, Exit2DOS2000 is co-author of article Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (and probably member of this), Quaerere Verum is co-author Knights Templar in Scotland and I bet for his membership in Scottish Knights Templar. This is very interesting and make big shadow over theirs objectivity. Maybe is this sort of "templars revenge", but I´m not king Philip_IV_of_France :) Yopie 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't a "templars reverange", it is simply editors not wanting Articles we care about getting badly described in a badly defined Article and a similarly badly defined Catagory. If there is something "Pseudo" about a group, put it in the Article and give a Citation.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit surprised to see I am credited as co-author :-). The log shows both articles were created by SKT1314 (talk•contribs) and then developed by  Steve Zissou (talk•contribs). An interesting conspiracy theory, but this is just about removing an article and a category that do nothing for Wikipedia.--Simsek (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, summary, there are two groups. First, who want delete this article, because is "badly written" - but this is argument for rewriting, adding etc. (Of course, I assume, that this group is connected with "Knight Templars"). Second opinion is, that this article have bad name - I agree, better will be "Self-styled orders" or "Revived orders" or so.Yopie 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
 * Why do you insist that we are Knights Templar simply because we disagree with you? I kindly ask that you please stop making this kind of statement, it is not helping you put across your point of view. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. The idea that the delete argument is being driven by what the article describes as "the extinct order of Knights Templar" is a wonderful oxymoron, and is the weakest possible argument for retaining the article.--Quaerere Verum (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Delete Pseudo is a really bad definition for anything and is bound to cause trouble. Chivalric orders should be developed instead. It is not suprising the article creator Yopie (talk • contribs) - difficult to follow due to lack of proper signatures - should oppose deletion, but the argument for no deleting is difficult to follow. --Simsek (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Confusing article with badly described category. --Alithea (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment Probably rename - The real probelm is that the article Chivalric orders is a poor one, being little more than a list. This article would be suitable as a section in that article, explaining that certain other "orders" are properly "pseudo-orders", being self-appointed rather than derived from a monarch.  If Chivalric orders had some encyclopaedic content (beyond the list), I would say merge, but until there is something worth merging it to, I have to suggest rename.  This raises the question of what to rename to - perhaps Invented orders of chivlary.  Subject to this the article is a reasonable one that merely needs a lilte cleaning up.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if it can be shown current name is used. Rename or merge if not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "Pseudo" is a bad definition for anything. It will lead to a lot of misunderstanding. Issues raised by it can be developed in the article Chivalric orders or in the articles in the orders which will need individual discussion. --Dikkat (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "Pseudo orders" is a concept related to chemical engineering, mathematics and computer science. Martintg (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I got the category deleted last week, but it came back. It was a speedy delete, so I don't think it was recorded. For me pseudo has always had a pejorative connotation. I looked it up in the Cambridge Dictionaries Online where it is defined as "prefix MAINLY DISAPPROVING not real; pretended:pseudo-religious; a pseudo-intellectual". I'm sure that's not what it's creator intended, but that's the subtlety of the English language for you. That's why I believe this article and its associated category should go. --Frank Ness (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems an argument for renaming, rather than for deletion. I suggested one alternative name above.  Can any one suggest somethign better?  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "What's in a name? that which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet; I do not agree. This is an unecessary description, difficult to interpret, adding nothing. Get rid of it. --Sannhet (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete a fork too many. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 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.