Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a stub with notability completely unestablished by what appears to be only self reference to the organization's website. There are no secondary sources here at all. Kephera975 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. See  and, and check user's contribs for recent multiple nominations of articles. IPSOS (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Nomination made in consideration for Wikipedia standards of verifiability and neutraility. These standards should apply to all of the articles found here per WP:SPAM including the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega article. I would have bundled them all except you are protecting that article. Kephera975 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't give your opinion twice. You nomination is your "vote". This give the appearance of ballot stuffing. Please expand your nomination if you feel it was incomplete rather than add another delete (non)vote. IPSOS (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non noteable, promotional. even more non-noteable than the 'stella matutina' order that's also up for AfD.Merkinsmum 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems clear to me that User:IPSOS is working in bad faith as he has singled out one of these un-notable articles but not the others. Clearly, if he defends the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and its licensees, bias is well indicated. See: Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega which should also be deleted but is protected by User:IPSOS. Kephera975 20:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop spreading misinformation. A look at the protection log shows that I was not the one who protected it. Plus it is only protected against moves. IPSOS (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: there are a lot of nn Rosicrucian/hermetic/mystical groups, and they can't really stand alone without their parent article, so I think this should be deleted, though a general article with all this little stubs included might work as well. Then again, it still doesn't satisfy notability well enough, I think. MSJapan 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Merge?: There are several articles tied to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, including this, The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, Ordo Stella Matutina, Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati, and others without article pages yet. Would a merge with that main article be a solution? It seems like a lot of potentially useful content would be lost if all these articles were removed; surely improving them would be a better/more constructive solution? I suggest 'merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn' if that is a viable alternative. ColdmachineTalk 21:24, 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 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete absent a showing of notability through coverage in third-party sources. FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a merge is sort of a good idea, but we could just list some of the prominent orgs that claim derivation on the GD page, we only need a summary of any really important differences between these orgs, rather than a lot about them in the GD article.Merkinsmum 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete no 3rd party references to show notability. --Kim D. Petersen 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Flunks WP:N.  At best merits part of a sentence in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. THF 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as non-notable (at least, no notability is established), or merge into a master article for all such groups. SamBC 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability not established. IPSOS (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not merge.  Non-notable.  No third-party references.   Do not merge into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn because there is no direct relationship and no reference or source to support their inclusion in the same article.  --Parsifal Hello 01:40, 7 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.