Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

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

"Royal Confraternity" of a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. Appears to have little or no reliable third-party coverage. Disputed WP:PROD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * General comment: the following are the relevant policy and guidelines:
 * WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
 * WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
 * Does anybody see a pattern here? Does anybody think that a 'Keep' !vote that does not address the quantity and quality of coverage has much relevance? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep that is not a reason for deletion; if they want to use the word "Royal," it's their lookout. It seems to have  an actual existence &  notable members. . I would be very much more satisfied with some neutral reliable source on them, though. DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: (i) lack of third party coverage is a reason for deletion: WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (ii) Even a kids' tree-hut secret-club has "actual existence" (and, it would appear, the same level of both official recognition & third-party coverage as this topic) -- that doesn't make for notability. (iii) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and a few notable members (many of whom are themselves notable for nothing more than being dis-established royals) does not make this confraternity notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that the part of the nom: " a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. " was not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not directly a reason for deletion, and wasn't intended as one. However a "royal confraternity" implicitly draws its claim to stature from its relationship to royalty -- and when that royalty had been disestablished 90 years before the confraternity is established, this clearly draws its notability into question -- a question that its lack of third party coverage answers in the emphatic negative. Or to put it another way, given the shear volume of hand-waving about (generally bogus) 'inherent notability' that one sees in AfDs, I got my rebuttal in first on whether this topic was inherently notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I tried to find some reliable, third party sources, but without success. --Yopie 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it needs a major cleanup, I can see no compelling reason for its deletion. The fact the Portuguese monarchy no longer officially exists is not a justification for deletion of an article on what appears to be a genuine order with notable members which is apparently open to all Roman Catholics, not just members of the Portuguese monarchy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: so how do you propose getting around the lack of third-party sourcing, and thus notability? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't propose anything. I give my opinion. That's what an AfD debate is for. You have your opinion, I have mine. And remember the notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. They're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V, as quoted above, is not a mere guideline, and likewise requires third-party sourcing -- which is a "compelling reason for its deletion". Your "opinion" does not appear to have any policy basis -- and therefore may be discounted as mere WP:ILIKEIT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't particularly like it. I have no particular views either way. I am merely voicing an opinion, as I stated. This is the whole point of AfDs. An essay (not even a guideline) such as the one you cited provides no basis for discounting the views of a contributor to a discussion. As to verifiability, there are enough third-party sources out there to verify that the order exists, so the policy's requirements are satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bare mention of existence &ne; "significant coverage", so no "the policy's requirements" are not satisfied. The "whole point of AfDs" is to give arguments that are substantiated (by policy and reliable sources). Please read WP:AFD. Opinions lacking any substantiation may be discounted. ("Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.") HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, this is an AfD. Its purpose is to determine whether an article should exist or not. That is completely different from WP:V, which is to determine whether information within an article should be on Wikipedia or not. As I said, there are enough third-party references out there to substantiate its existence. Therefore it meets the requirements for WP:V, the only applicable policy. Notability guidelines are fluid and are guidelines. If they were set in stone then AfD discussions would be rendered obsolete. Notability and Verifiability are different issues. Whether all the information within the article can be verified or not is a separate issue and one we are not discussing here - all that matters is whether the order exists (it clearly does) and whether or not it is notable (which is what we are discussing and is effectively based on opinion).


 * So, to recap, there are two separate issues here:
 * a) Is the existence of the organisation verifiable? Yes, it is.
 * b) Is the organisation notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? What we are here to discuss. I believe it is for the reasons I have given. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, but please do not start quoting non-applicable policies to back up an argument and claim that other editors' opinions are invalid. That is bordering on a lack of civility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong! WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is not "significant coverage" in "reliable, third-party sources" on the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio, so "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So, NO it is NOT "completely different from WP:V". And as it is POLICY not a mere guideline it is NOT "fluid". To recap:
 * Is mere existence sufficient to meet WP:V? No it is not. (See quote above.)
 * WP:V, WP:GNG & WP:ORG all require significant third party coverage. Has any of your "reasons" discussed this? No they have not. (Nor for that matter have they discussed any relevant policy or guideline supporting your opinion.) Are they therefore in any way relevant? No they are not.
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, we are uncivil aren't we! Well, we'll let the closer decide, shall we? I'm rather tired of debating with a ranter. Frankly, I'm not really bothered about this article, but I'm a little surprised at your reaction to someone who dares to disagree with you. You obviously don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I also looked for reliable 3rd party sources without success. dougweller (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Without comment on this article, the above discussion based on the content of WP:V appears to have missed some key facts.  The quote from WP:V given by the nominator was from a short-lived version that was reverted fairly quickly because the change (introducing the word 'significant') did not have consensus.  Also, the inclusion of 'third-party' in the sentence has been disputed by a number of commenters on WT:V (myself included), and I am uncomfortable with the claim that that has consensus either.  WP:N, of course, continues to require significant coverage in third-party sources as it always has, but as Necrothesp points out, we can choose to ignore such guidelines if they tell us to delete an article that common sense indicates we should keep. JulesH (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I was quoting an obsolete/non-consensus version of policy. However, I would question whether we have been presented with any "common sense [reason] indicat[ing] we should keep" -- the best that Necrothesp has come up with to date appears to be the very lowball 'it exists'. Strong, valid reasons for ignoring guidelines need to be clearly articulated for the call to ignore them to be given any weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I used my own name which is even mentioned in the Confraternity entry, but I was the one tagged with WP:COI for editing this article. I feel compelled to mention for all those who say they can't find reliable sources that there are quite a few listed when they aren't being wrongly tagged or reverted. All are independent and verifiable. Those are the primary Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One challenger seems particularly biased against formally regnant royal houses (PLEASE refer to his own text on the discussion page of the article; this is not my opinion) and apparently assigns negative reliability based on that status. The same challenger questioned the citation of a Spanish publication which was already found in an online bookseller site and for which I offered an electronic version as well. I have asked what facts support the individual's claims that the two royal house websites and the publication are unreliable and the only answer I get is a challenge to produce proof that the Spanish Academy which produces an annual publication listing the Confraternity is "recognized". Since there is no authority in place to do such a recognition this is impossible. How can the source be called unreliable when the challenger has not even reviewed the source itself and doesn't even know the authors? One of the primary authors is Jose Maria de Montells y Galan, who you can find as a direct source in a number of Wikipedia entries which are not challenged. Of course no one bothered to follow this up on the discussion page where I defended this publication and offered to share the information. I would have thought that someone truly concerned with Wikipedia policy and not personal opinion would have wanted to know things like that. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is admittedly weak and needs major revision but we can not do so while the entry is under challenge for deletion. There are many activities which could be referenced with sources such as the websites for the royal houses of Georgia and Rwanda, but as long as they are challenged for being "former royals" and therefore "unreliable" there is no point in adding further target material. I hope to see the notability of this article proved here or in further arbitration and then help to build this article into a more informative one. I thought the purpose of this process was to avoid deletion but one challenger in particular has been completely negative and provided no helpful information to improve the article. My alleged WP:COI edits were to add sources and improve format of sources as they were challenged. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would note that:
 * DaleLeppard has not presented any evidence that any of these sources are reliable.
 * The royal houses in question have overlapping membership with the Confraterntiy, so they are not independent.
 * None of the disputed sources are actually WP:CITEd for any specific information in the article, so it is not clear what, if any, information they contribute on the topic. In fact, as of now, the only citationed information in the entire article is that "Saint Theotonius [was] a 12th Century Portuguese canon and royal advisor".
 * This lack of citations means that it has not been established that this organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are independent and verifiable. What possible reason could you have to challenge the reliability of two royal houses and a Spanish publication that you have never even read? Do you hold all Wikipedia articles to this standard because nowhere else do I see such scrutiny applied. It seems you can not be satisfied. You argue that the Confraternity is not notable enough for the Wikipedia yet according to you it influences several royal houses and publications. How is that possible? Your words might even carry weight if you so much as looked at the sources but I had to walk you through all of them myself. The sources were added, as you well know, because you challenged the notability of the organization. That is their purpose. When the arbitration process is completed the article can be revised and appropriate citations can be added based on the sources given as well as new sources applicable to the material that will be added. Yes there are members in these royal houses and many MANY other organizations. Independent means simply that the Confraternity exercises no control over these organizations and entities and that they are not a component of the Confraternity. That is established. Whether there are mutual members is a standard beyond reason. If it was uninteresting to the people in a position to give it credibility it would not be worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place. Again you ask the impossible. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's a lack of independent third-party sources that can be used to establish the notability of this organisation. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please clarify why you apparently disregard the cited sources. If you are simply assuming the constant erroneous "unreliable source" labels are correct or failing to find something on a search engine then please actually look at the sources cited. If you have questions perhaps they can be answered. I would like to improve this article but only constructive input will help. Third party or independent sources means that the subject organization is not a parent or sibling component of the source and exercises no control over the source. That is the case in all the sources cited. Thanks. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the references are used to establish the notability of the organisation. They are simply listed as "general references".  No attempt is made to connect them with the content of the article, no attempt is made to show how the support the notability of the group. There is nothing to suggest that the "Registro De Ordenes De Caballeria Del Reino De Espana" is a reliable source.  I found 7 google hits for that publication.  Two of them appear to be bibliographic databases; neither could find any library which held the volume.  A reliable source would, presumably be available somewhere.  The reference to The Sentinel is insufficient; Sentinel is a disambiguation page which lists 16 local papers by that name.  The article title, "Ode to a Portuguese king in a Carlisle church" sounds like a local-interest story.  It doesn't sound like the sort of in-depth reporting that would be needed to establish the notability of an organisation.  The third "general reference" does not establish the notability of the organisation.  As is to be expected in a "Community Scrapbook", it lists happenings of local interest - an "Academic Bowl" victory by a local middle school; a local church presents "Gold Medal Marriage Awards" to three couples who were married 51, 54 and 62 years respectively.  And the "Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio" donates $1000 to the local Habitat for Humanity.  There's no investigation in "Community Scrapbook" articles.  The reporter almost certainly did not ask the couples for proof they had been married 62 years.  This isn't investigative reporting.  This isn't subject to intense fact-checking.  But most importantly, the three-sentence paragraph in the "community scrapbook" does nothing to establish the notability of the group.  That paragraph wouldn't establish notability in Wikipedia.  Simply referencing it outside of Wikipedia does not magically make it sifficient to establish notability here.  Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: during this AfD DaleLeppard has:
 * Flagrantly disregarded the advice of Uw-coi that "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original)
 * Made edits to the article that go well beyond WP:COI, and has included removal of templates, introduction of unreliable wiki references (in a manner that also violates WP:MOS incidentally), reintroduction of an unpublished and thus unverifiable reference.
 * Has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the independence and reliability of sources. I would note that despite his pretense that I am the sole skeptic on this that (i) that the reliability of the Spanish source was challenged by Yopie first, and (ii) that nobody except DL is defending these sources. I would further note that the membership of the Rwandan 'King' and a "claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia" in this organisation clearly impeaches the independence of these 'Royal Houses' as sources.
 * I would conclude by requesting that DaleLeppard exercise restraint on this AfD (in keeping with WP:COI) and that in particular he take lengthy discussions of the reliability of sources either to talk (to which I've removed his latest, lengthy missive) or to WP:RS/N, which are the more appropriate fora for these discussions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It looks like an improper policy interpretation is being used as pointed out by JulesH Since WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", not whether the coverage meets individualized "significance" tests. As far as WP:V, Necrothesp makes a valid point that there are verifiable third party sources. Msnpilot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnpilot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (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.