Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega


 * 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. --Core desat 07:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page is non-notable as it relies on a website and self-referential books. Page also seems to not follow Wikipedia guidelines in WP:SPAM. I am also answering a challenge made without civility and in bad faith by User:IPSOS found here: Kephera975 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, Request to close AfD, Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as per the other AfDs on related articles here, here, and here. ColdmachineTalk 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) The article seems fairly comprehensive to me. If you are concerned about the verifiability of sources then perhaps you could improve the article rather than nominating it for AfD? Surely that would be more constructive? (edit conflict) I see you added a note about your dispute with User:IPSOS: AfD is not the place to raise the matter. ColdmachineTalk 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to integrate the numerous contemporary orders into one central and more comprehensive article, per AfDs here, here, here and here. ColdmachineTalk 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. With respect, merging all those articles would cause ongoing problems. The fact that they each claim some connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn does not make it true. They are not at all the same thing and there is no reference or source to support their inclusion in the same article. If they are merged it will become much more difficult to disambiguate them and would create fertile ground for continual edit warring about what should or should not be included.  All of that aside, this AfD  is about a non-notable organization that has only self-promotional references, so this article should be deleted and not merged anyway, whatever happens on those other AfD's.  --Parsifal Hello 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * delete I don't believe this is a noteable organisation, plus it does read a bit spammy. Note that dozens of current occult orders claim to be descended from earlier orders- so be careful when googling as they may bear no direct relation to earlier orgs of the same name/those they claim association with.  (off topic- I believe Kephera may, albeit perhaps indirectly, be clearing up wiki of non-noteable orgs.  Any sources in the article seem to be fringe magazines.  30 separate google mentions or something, including wikipedia.Merkinsmum 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Request to Close AFD Nominator seems to be acting in bad faith when he says "I am answering a challenge made..." in the actual nom itself. This ties into Articles_for_deletion/The_Open_Source_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.  I don't want to assume bad faith, but the nom's own words clearly indicate he has a horse in this race, or clearly a point to be made, which is reason to close discussion.   In short, the entire premise of this nom is tainted, and nominating articles because you were dared, challenged or otherwise IS bad faith. Pharmboy 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see any reliable sources which back up the notability of this organization. It's clearly not a bad faith nomination; he was requested, by another user to nominate this page, and did so.  I don't see any reason to oppose on such a basis. --Haemo 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment assume goodish faith, no matter what the nominators personal feelings this org may well be worth deleting. Their war is irrelevant to the sustance of the AfD (complete lack of noteability of this org).  He was half-joking about the challenge thing.  We don't have to play it straight all the time you know:) His comment was in response to one by User:IPSOS and there seems to be mutual aggrevation which he is also experiencing from User:IPSOS.Merkinsmum 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was joking, and the tone and links I provide confirm this. His being tagged as a sockpuppet for someone with continuous POINT issues aside, it is inappropriate to use this as a basis (real or otherwise) for a nom.  I didn't vote yes/no on the article.  Sometimes policy is more important that a single article.  Pharmboy 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please see the talk page where myself and several other users were attempting to politely discuss the issues, when suddenly Kephera975 starts flinging accusations of bias and threatens that he thinks none of these well-established articles would survive nomination for deletion. He did this is lieu of actually discussion concerns raised in a mature manner. IPSOS (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete every reference to this article is golden-dawn.com - or strange trademark registrations. Where are the outside 3rd party references that makes this notable? --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete absent a showing of coverage in third-party sources that establish notability. Concerns of bad faith are perhaps a reflection of this situation being a bit of a furball, but it doesn't invalidate this nomination.  It probably just means everybody needs to be cool, and realize that having axes to grind isn't helpful for Wikpiedia.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flunks WP:N.  At best, it merits a sentence in the main article. THF 23:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  Self-promotional.  The website linked in the article multiple times even contains a membership order form, you can join for $99.00 plus $50.00 per year, using PayPal, right here. --Parsifal Hello 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability not established. IPSOS (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fnord - the mgt. &larr;BenB4 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources, notability not established, no coverage in any third party publication. GlassFET 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Light Merge - I agree with Coldmachine in the manner that this should be merged, but it is misleading to those who are a part of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and it's not part of the organization directly. If anything, the only reason I don't lean towards a total deletion is due to the fact that people are entitled to their beliefs.  WP isn't a place for advertising memberships however. Why is this not an article that is part of if it is legitimate? --Mnemnoch 02:33, 10 August 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.