Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign order of the knights of orient


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign order of the knights of orient

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

Contested PROD, reason was: Previously speedy deleted as non-notable; prior PROD reason was: Unsourced article, zero google hits, likely hoax


 * Delete and salt due to lack of reliable sources. I ran a Google search when the article was re-created before I posted the second PROD, and also found zero hits. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete - the book cited, published in 1921, can only be a source for the first part of the article, which is a ramble through all sorts of mediaeval orders - following up the names leads to the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar... The point of the article is the claim that the order has been reconstituted; the only source given is the web-site of the "Sovereign Hindu-Vaishnava Mandir" set up by HSH Prince Leonardo Salomone (presumably, author of this article); as well as this Order it includes a "Royal Vedic University." Searches for these find only that website, plus references spammed into Wikipedia by an IP on 1 April, and one in Italian WP. No reliable sources, possible hoax/scam, certainly not notable. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. As noted above, the lack of sources and notability are major issues; the hoax/OR/something-made-up issues also factor in. I'm right on the verge of speedy deleting it under A7 because I don't think the claim of a UK charter is valid, so that would leave the organization with no claim of importance. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

not deleteno democracy it'more easy to tell bad about anyone then says anithing god i can believe there so many evil in this world are you god to tell what is true or not the story should fit on the desire of few ,but it is not the true some believe the piramid are 4000 years old some believe they are 12000 years old they can prove it but some will not believe it ,only god know if wickipedia base theire article on contestation of few peoples who claim to know everything it will not go for a long way  there is freedom of religion it's included in all civil costitution dont be talebani  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.226.6 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)  — 151.49.226.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Actually, this is a democratic process. People are discussing the merits of the article, and how easily verified it is. In this case, the article so far has not been verified as legitimate or notable in any way. As an encyclopedia, information presented must have independant research in order to back its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. No one here is saying that people can't believe what they want. Obviously that is everyone's entitelment. However, that has no bearing on the facts we are presented, which is why this article is being discussed for deletion. →JogCon← 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not even come close to meeting the requirements at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability apparent, and I'm seeing no reliable sources.  Only link is a web page apparently about the order.  Note, we are not a democracy here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * not delete notable interesting non profit organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.226.6 (talk)
 * That's fine, but WP:INTERESTING is a good thing to review in light of this. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, to the IP above. We are not tallying votes on this matter. It's a discussion about the merits of the article remaining on Wikipedia, so no need to "vote" more than once. But since you are saying it should not be deleted, what about this organization is notable? →JogCon← 10:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - "non profit organization" ? prove that and that will prove this Article is not a hoax. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  09:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * not delete very interesting to know others point of wiew we know about knights in the west but not well know the knights of oriental culture,it is notable the ecumenical approach,usualy all the religious knights orders are open to their faith only,interesting olso the fact that they hand down traditional holistitic medicine ,so not involved with multinationals,give to all the possibility to know something more that what you can find everywhere, this is the spirit of wikipedia great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhan (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 May 2009 — Marhan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (this !vote moved from talk page by JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment - the question is not whether it is interesting, or non-profit, or even whether it exists, but whether it "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" as required by the guideline Notability (organizations and companies). JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * unimportant comment - We could let is slide past WP:N (a guideline} (as a lack of Citations is not a reason for deletion)... We have to make it get past WP:V (Policy) first, which it has not at this point (which is a reason for deletion). Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

comment I can't beleive that anybhody register a non profit organizzation run a clinic (present in the web with address and phone number) for 20 years to make a hoax, this article follow the guide and the aim of wikipedia,a lack of Citations is not a reason for deletion,there are many article without any citation and they are there(everything is not on google and if in the future google will not include wikipedia on the search engine it doesn't mean that it's not present),the article may be develop in the future, this is the object of wikipedia,the article is notable according to the guide(see notable as attracting notice not only as famous according to Notability (organizations and companies).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment: The central issue with the lack of citations is the lack of verifiability of the information in the article.  It's not sufficient for the organization to exist; the organization must have significant coverage, &c. (see the policy quoted by JohnCD above).  I note in passing that a Google search (as I did before I sent the article into AFD) is not in and of itself a sufficient check on verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2009

reply not according to wiki guide as it says, other way wikipedia would be reserved to big and powerful organisation i dont thing this is wiki will.only big and money organisation can have significan coverage,read wiki and see that it's not like this. wiki is and should be out of this pattern.wiki is freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk)
 * "Wiki" is community. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and depends on everything being verifiable and suitably covered.  My existence is verifiable, but I am (regrettably) not sufficiently noteworthy to be included in an encyclopedia. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

not delete as verificable state link :http://opac.regione.sardegna.it/SebinaOpac/Opac?action=search&thAutEnteDesc=Soro%2C+Vincenzo&startat=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that link is a library catalogue which confirms only that there exists the book Il gran libro della natura : opera curiosa del secolo 18, published in 1921. That cannot provide any confirmation about the order being "renewed in 1998" or about its present activities. I can do better: here is a page about Dr. Salomone's medical institute. But that is a page on a free hosting site, it is not independent, and it says nothing about the Order. In any case, I repeat: for an article in Wikipedia it is not enough that an organisation exists, it must be notable, which it requires that it"has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, JohnCD, that reference sounds to me like a conflict of interest or primary source, depending on the interpretation. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but, I guese its just a difference of interpretations. I cannot see any of the provided sources Verifying its current existance, without having problems of being truely Independant of the source. That was my point in wanting proof that it is a non-profit organization, a gov't listing (or an equilivent non-profit org. number) would go a long way here. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * as non profit organization it's recorded to the ministery of finance in italy ,the registration n°01560500686(ministero delle finanze.also notary reg:7141--the teaching activity are registred in the state schools ,for the interreligious activity there is also record at the state italian television(rai2)and rai 3 after the clinic open (with interwiew from giovanni verna ) and state radio 2 (interwiew from margerita del bono)also interwiew from TV6(non state). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing my comparison: My existence is verifiable from birth certificate number such-and-such, on file at the appropriate government office in the city of my birth.  That STILL doesn't mean that an article on me would be appropriate for Wikipedia.  By comparison, registration documents on file for an organization disprove the original "likely hoax" claim, but are not sufficient to justify an article on Wikipedia.  (See:  Other stuff exists and similar arguments to avoid.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to the sole keep vote - I'd like to point out that thus far we have come up with a reason that trumps your statement that they are a verifiable non profit organization - they are not notable. I bring this up because you repeatedly tell us that this org effectively exists, but we repeatedly tell you that this org is not notable. Being a non profit org does not make one notable, it makes one a non profit org.  The repetition does not help. Just saying. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 12 May 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.