Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (second nomination)


 * 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 keep. The article appears to show notability. The "delete" commenters about it being spam must have read the article at a different revision that what I did, as it doesn't read like spam to me. There's plenty of references as well - just because they aren't accessable on the internet does not make them unreliable. In all, the general consensus was to keep the article.  Majorly  (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was deleted through its previous AfD. Deletion Review overturned that result for a variety of reasons, including the AfD's nominator's failure to list the debate in the daily AfD log, limiting community participation. Still, Delete, given weak notability and little reliable sourcing. Xoloz 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn after reducing the article to facts supported primarily by sources published by reliable publishers. For example, I've done so at User:IPSOS/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., where I've minimized the use of the website as a reference (it's still needed for general existence and related "certified" organizations), and tried to only keep the non-controversial facts which could be cited to books published by reliable publishers. I think there is no need to explain teachings, etc. in detail, that's what the Order's website and Cicero's books are for. Of course, I had to rely on Chic Cicero's account of the creation of the Order, but as it is not self-published and only gives a timeline of events, I don't see it as problematic. IPSOS (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt, this article order looks to me like its pretending to be the real The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn or as notable as The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, SqueakBox 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - so your argument boils down to IDONTLIKEIT, then. IPSOS (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt say that, indeed its a very poor understanding of my comments indeed, SqueakBox 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "pretending to be the real The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" ... is simply nowhere to be found in the revised article - if it is, please show us the evidence. If there is no evidence to show that, will you please give your rationale for the above, really difficult to comprehend, example of biased opinin pushing? Furthermore, your comment does nothing to establish the basis for inclusion or removal, of an article which is factual, contributes to understanding of a topic, and provides a careful balanced NPOV article. docboat 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn - As proposed in the revised article (see IPSOS above) The revised article is NPOV, encyclopaedic, provides balance. docboat 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Revising vote to Keep after re-reading the comments and article. The article does stand alone, the facts will be poorly accepted by POV pushers on the page if merged, and the notability of this movement is evident based on penetration of influence throughout GD circles. docboat 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only possible assertion of notability in the article is that Chic Cicero and Tabatha Cicero are associated with it - and I notice that the former author's notability is suspect and survived an AfD with a "no consensus" vote. At any rate, even if these people are well-known within a subculture (and I'm skeptical of that), there's no reason to believe that they confer their notability on this organization.  nn.  --Hyperbole 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you hang about a bit and review the revised article which IPSOS will be inserting? docboat 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated it. IPSOS (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it another look before the close of the AfD. --Hyperbole 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Ciceros are notable people within the ceremonial magic community. They seem currently to be the most widely available authors of serious books on the subject, partly through their partnership with Llewellyn publishing, through whom they have released quite a few books. They have also sparked considerable controversy through the naming of their order. Fuzzypeg ☻ 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Deletion was overturned recently, and it appears that this article was relisted before it was closed as overturn. (see Xoloz's link above).  J- stan  Talk Contribs 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange comment. I was watching. The close was done at 00:21, then the article was undeleted, then the AfD created at 00:28. Everything seems to be in order. IPSOS (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems to be spam and indirect advertising.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per IPSOS' shearing down the article. Looks good. Sethie 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and ...there are already some references, including it seems, three non-self-published books with a couple that describe Israel Regardie's involvement with the origins of the group. This seems to be a small group but notable enough to have received some WP:V coverage, so also, keep per WP:N and WP:PAPER. --Parsifal Hello 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete as it does not establish enough notability. Coverage in citations lacks depth. Appears to be an advertisement. Website contains links to a paypal site to take sides in legal suits against another golden dawn styled order. There were many Orders in the contemporary section, most all of whom were deleted, and keeping this one would incur a lack of neutrality on the part of Wikipedia, giving it the appearance of taking sides. This wikipedia entry comes up as second on search engines under this corporation's link, making it possible that this article has been fought for so hard through deletion review, etc based on wanting recognition, marketability, recruitment and business advantage which is in COI to Wikipedia. Many of the citations are from members of the organization or from the organization's president, who himself may be notable but this is besides the point. Anything trivial which may draw any notability about the organization appears to pertain to events happening before the subject of the article, the incorporation, was incorporated in 1988. As for merging, it simply does not have the notability requirements to be on the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page seeing as it uses self-published material and attempts to give advantage to one contemporary POV. Kephera975 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Kephera975 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've struck the above !vote as the user in question has been proven to be a sock of an indef blocked user, see Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. GlassFET 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Many of the citations are from members of the organization" - you have made this assertion before and I have asked you to provide citations to a source where the individual in question has self-identified as a member, which is the Wikipedia requirement for membership determination. So far you have been unable to provide this required proof. Given this, none of your objections are valid reasons to delete. IPSOS (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete do not merge per reworking of the article by IPSOS . I no longer believe this should be merged with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn unless all of the other contemporary order articles were also to be merged, and the AfDs on those have established a 'keep' outcome, as demonstrated here, here, and here. All of those should be merged into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn if this this article is.
 * Addendum: I've switched to !vote delete; after rereading this it's clear the references are minimal and they're not 3rd party, so the article lacks notability. ColdmachineTalk 07:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep there are deeper problems here if the content moves to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article. That might create a deceptive impression that HOGD Inc.  are inarguably a direct continuation of the original HOGD, with a chain of succession incontravertable compared to the other modern HOGD based orders.  That is by no means accepted by a lot of people, and at least 2 modern orders claim to be the 'real' HOGD, with one other org actually calling   itself the "Authentic" order of the Golden Dawn or something.  I don't think HOGD Inc deserve much more coverage in that article than the other orgs. I know it's an 'other stuff exists' argument, but Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn was decided as a keep, and I think actually HOGD Inc may be more noteable than them, if it wasn't for the novelty of OSOGD's open source-ness.  Anyway with out getting into the general arguments about actual coverage on wiki, it is possibly more well known than OSOGD.Merkinsmum 13:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, as to the noteability being mainly by association with Chic Cicero, if it's decided that's so, it should not have it's own article but just a mention in his.Merkinsmum 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Kephera975, and by the same standards by which any religious congregation congregation or other organization would be judged. The refs appear to lack the degree of independence that would be required to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison 15:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the same reasons I gave on the last AfD. Reasons: notability and spam.  . V .  [Talk 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I believe the article stands on its own, but if the choice is between deleting and merging, it should be merged. GlassFET 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not merge - As the article says - "While bearing the same name as the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (1888-1908), the modern Order does not have direct descent or institutional lineage from the original Order" Artw 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per IPSOS' trimming down the article. There are half a dozen third party references and notability has been established. User:Hogd120 20:41, 22 August 2007


 * Keep: Disclosure: I am a member of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, an organization that is certified by the HOGD (Inc.) I have met Charles 'Chic' and Tabatha Cicero twice. My organization is sponsoring a workshop with them in September in San Francisco. Admins and editors may take my comments with as many grains of salt as needed.


 * HOGD(I) is the longest continuously operating modern revival group of the Golden Dawn still in existence today. This is documented by major published references to the founding date of 1978, as well as their incorporation in the 1980s. No other Golden Dawn order shows this level of organization and continuity. This makes them the most notable part of a notable spiritual tradition.


 * HOGDI is one of the few occult groups to establish a non-profit corporation, one that has persevered from the 1980s to the present day. Few such groups ever distinguish themselves in this manner. They also have IRS 50i(c) tax-exempt status as a charitable organization.


 * The founder and leader of HOGD(I) is the foremost published author of books about the Golden Dawn tradition. These are not self-published, but are under the Llewellyn imprint, the largest publisher of occult and new age books in the world.


 * HOGDI is the organization that grew out of the work of the late Dr. Israel Regardie and his efforts to revive and re-establish the Golden Dawn Order in the USA. Chic Cicero and his partners were instrumental in that effort. To that end, Regardie performed Adept and Neophyte rituals in the HOGDI's Temples and Vault, for which there is published photographic evidence. There is similar photographic evidence showing Regardie and Cicero together, all in the illustrations and plates of some of the aforementioned books. HOGDI has scans of correspondence between Regardie and Cicero, concerning both temple activities and legal contractual issues. No one has ever challenged the authenticity of the letters. HOGDI is the foremost proponent of Regardie's Golden Dawn work today, and it's doubtful that Cicero's books would continue to be published and republished by a major book company (Llewellyn) if his bona fides were not authentic and verified.


 * One of the Ciceros' most popular books, "Self-Initiation in to the Golden Dawn Tradition" has the symbol of the Order and a description of the organization in it's introduction pages. While the book was written by the Ciceros, it was published by Llewellyn, and we can assume a certain level of editorial fact checking and verification from a major imprint.


 * With [User:IPSOS] concise trimming of the article, all the previous issues raised regarding notability have been addressed. JMax555 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - to main HOGD article, Breifly mentioning this and all other bodies that claim to be "heirs" of the original group.Blueboar 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would object to mentioning other bodies as there are no reliable sources even for their existence. They have all recently been deleted as non-notable because there were not any third-party sources at all. How could we ignore WP:V in this way? In fact, these sorts of arguments for including other non-notable groups if this one is merged have made me decide to change my !vote to keep. IPSOS (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if they have a website that is reliable enough to say something like: "Other bodies which claim to be heirs to the original HOGD include: "The Hermetic Golden Order of Dawn", "The Order of Hermetic Golden Dawn", "Joe's Golden Dawn Org.", and "The Dawn of Golden Hermeticism". I am not saying that these bodies need extensive coverage, nor am I saying that every group needs to be included, but there are other groups that claim to be an heir to the original group, and at least some of them should be mentioned.  NPOV and all that. Blueboar 13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, autobiographical & self-published sources like websites can only be used in an article about the author or publisher. It's in WP:V. I understand that that is why the articles were split in the first place, the self-published sources couldn't be used in a combined article. However, it turned out that self-published sources couldn't be used exclusively, they needed third-party sources to establish notability. What it boils down to is that if some organization is not notable enough to have it's own article and it has no third party sources at all, then it can't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. At least, that's how I read WP:V and WP:RS. Could you show me some exception in WP:V that would allow such a mention? Both articles and mention of fringe Masonic groups have been completely eliminated in just this way, haven't they? IPSOS (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nooo, hence not entirely noteable relatives of famous people, if their articles are deleted, often get a mention in the more famous relative's article. And like on the theistic Satanism article, groups are explained briefly who were denied their own article.    If things were either worth their own article or not mentioned at all on wikip, the truth of things would not be represented and in fact it would seem like only one version of the truth was presented, very POV and all other versions completely erased.  Other orgs need to be mentioned if HOGD inc is mentioned in the main article, for NPOV.  Not everyone agrees that HOGD Inc. is the One True Golden Dawn, anyway like happens on most articles it's ok to mention things that wouldn't get their own entire article.  Plus we need only mention that these orgs say they are part of the golden dawn tradition.  All these AfDs and arguments stem from the deletion/redirect of the article Golden Dawn tradition, maybe that would be worth recreating for more edit-warring fun.:)Merkinsmum 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if those things are going on without third-party references then those mentions should be removed. If there are third-party references, there is no problem. For example, relatives of famous people are usually mentioned in the subject's biography, autobiography or memoirs. Thus there are third party references and there is indeed no problem mentioning them. However, if fringe groups in "theistic Satanism" (whatever that is) are being mentioned based only on their own websites or other self-published material, these mentions should be removed post haste. IPSOS (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IPSOS, I think you have an unusually narrow view of WP:SELF... but it does not apply in any case. Since these bodies all claim to be descended from the historical HOGD in some way or another, I would argue that they fit within the criteria of WP:SELF in an article on that subject.  At least in support of the statement that they do claim descent. Anyway, that is beyond the scope of this AfD.  I still think the HOGD Inc. article should be merged into the main article. Blueboar 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the point is that they for the most part don't claim descent. They are revival or re-creation Orders and nearly everyone agrees that this is the case. IPSOS (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, it is not WP:SELF I am refering to, it is WP:V and its sole exception WP:V. The point is, none of these groups can actually be the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: that ceased to exist circa 1902 - 1908. Therefore the self-published websites of these groups simply cannot be used in that article without at the very least reliable third-party support. IPSOS (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake... I thought SELF directed to that section of WP:V you point to ... I was talking about the same "Self-published sources" section you point to. And while none of these groups claim a direct descent, because they are recreations and descendants in spirit, I still think the self-published rules indicate inclusion for a simple "these are the moddern groups" statement.  But all that can (and probably will) be argued at the article. Blueboar 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be analogous to in the article Religion in Birmingham there used to be (dunno if there is now) 3 groups mentioned by name as running pagan events. If only one is mentioned, even if they have more sources, that would create the misleading impression that they are the only one running events.  Do you see what I mean?  It would be misleading and maybe POV/advertising.  Anyway, we can argue this on the HOGD article.:)Merkinsmum 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand you, but I disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We must have a reliable source for information. We have no obligation to level the playing field for groups which are non-notable by Wikipedia standards, which does not mean there is anything wrong with these groups, merely that they are not encyclopedic. IPSOS (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Most of the others were deleted, but at least one survived because it was notable enough.
 * We should avoid basing this decision on WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Parsifal Hello 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject seems to meet notability guidelines as per WP:ORG. Whether other similar groups do or do not meet such guidelines is irrelevant to the discussion of this particular subject. However, if others did decide to merge the content into another article, I personally cannot see any objection to their doing so. That, however, is an entirely separate matter from whether this particular group is notable in and of itself. John Carter 16:41, 23 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.