Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn


 * 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. Sufficient reliable sources have been presented. JoshuaZ 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

relies on a website and a newspaper article for notability. There is only one secondary source and it is trivial or incidental at best. Kephera975 19:56, 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) 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment note that the nominator conveniently ignores the book source (Wicker, Christine (2005). Not In Kansas Anymore - A Curious Tale of How Magic is Transforming America. Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-072678-4) where both the founder and the Order are discussed at some length. IPSOS (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not in the guidelines of notability or SPAM. I am acting as a neutral party who believes all of these articles are not verifiable according to Wikipedia. Verifiability trumps the baseless accusation of "bad faith". I did not ignore the Wicker source, I am stating it is trivial. The book hardly mentioned the subject matter in any depth whatsoever. Even so, that is only one source, and a shoddy one at that. I would want the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega page deleted as well for the same reasons but you have that article protected even though, as it stands, it looks like a violation of a trademark. Kephera975 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep As the article and references seem fine. Nom seems petty and relies on subjective analysis on the sources, pushing WP:Good faith to the limit. Pharmboy 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Request AFD be closed Based on Articles_for_deletion/Rosicrucian_Order_of_Alpha_et_Omega where the same nominator says he is acting out of being challenged, I would say the entire process has been tainted and should be closed. Pharmboy 21:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, User:IPSOS acted in bad faith as can be seen on my talk page: Kephera975 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in a tit for tat or "he started it" conversation. I am not your father nor here to referee.  Dragging your little spat with IPSOS into AFDs shows an amazing lack of judgement and taints the process, particularly Articles_for_deletion/Rosicrucian_Order_of_Alpha_et_Omega where you say that you nomnated it because you were challenged.  I can't see how that is anything but a bad faith action.   Pharmboy 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * delete fails notability. If not deleted then merge into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As for the book as source - My aunt Karin was once mentioned in a book about Flensburg (where she lives) - does that make her notable? (edit conflict) --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn? ColdmachineTalk 21:45, 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 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it has enough WP:WEIGHT to entail merging. The current references certainly wouldn't merit such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

*delete - no demonstration of notability from independent third-party sources, no verifiability outside of their own writings. I hate bad-faith AfDs and people creating them to make a WP:POINT, but to tell you the truth, if some witchy person goes and writes a bunch of books, that doesn't make them notable. What makes them notable is independent third-party coverage. If these witchy people are unknown outside of their own friends and readers, they don't go into Wikipedia. I can accept WP:POINT if it helps identify self-congratulatory spam that needs to be removed from Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn to the extent there is any verifiable notable comment, but I don't think more than a sentence survives. THF 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge if we must. But I can find no WP:RS evidence of notability - I urge caution of sources for a merge.   Obina 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment this AfD should be considered on it's own merits no matter who has nominated it. IMHO several of the articles this person's nominated are valid deletion candidates.  The row between him and User:IPSOS goes both ways with User:IPSOS being equally provocative and with a dubious history of his own.  It is Ipsos who left a message on Kephera's talk page goading him to start the other article's AfD.  I advised him to go ahead at it was an obvious potential candidate for AfD, as can be seen by the consensus beginning to emerge at Articles_for_deletion/Rosicrucian_Order_of_Alpha_et_Omega.  So everyone please consider each AfD on it's own merits, no matter what the nominators motives each individual article should be kept or deleted based on it's non-noteability, spamminess or lack there of.Merkinsmum 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - adding the Thelema Coast to Coast interview and the Krengel article into the sources for this article seem to make for notability, at least within their own community.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment.Your note fails WP:CIVIL and I respectfully request that you strike out the words some witchy person and these witchy people and choose a more appropriate way to express your thoughts. Those are disparaging comments about the religious beliefs of actual human beings.  I am not involved with that religion or philosophy, but the people who are, are as worthy of respect as those of any other religion.
 * Regarding the point of your comment, if a person of a certain religious belief writes a book, and people who believe in that religion buy the book, and it is written about in magazines that are read by people of that religion, there is nothing about WP:Notable that says that's not good enough and that people of other religions, or of no religion, have to consume the material in order for it to be notable.  --Parsifal Hello 01:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [struck-out my comment since the prior comment has been modified, my reply no longer is relevent. --Parsifal Hello 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)]
 * Sorry, I've modified my entire comment now that some independent sources have been added. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  I've now struck-out my comment as well.  I didn't mean to be heavy-handed in my note if it came across that way.  No offense was intended.  --Parsifal Hello 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The dispute between nominator and others is not at issue.  The real issue is that deletion should not be used en lieu of normal editing processes. RandomCritic 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been in existence for over a year and there have been no editorial improvements made. This ignores the fact that any article which does not meet verifiability standards is fair game for deletion. Kephera975 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the nominator, it is not necessary for you to repeat your arguments in the body of the AfD. In addition, the article was added as a project-stub several weeks ago to WikiProject Thelema, before this AfD, which means it was already tagged for improvement by the project.  Wikipedia is not in a hurry.  Deletion is not a good substitute for improvement of articles.  --Parsifal Hello 06:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - I've added a couple more references produced since the ones already cited in the article. Clearly this Order has attracted the attention of others. It's existence is verifiable and its notability is for the combination of the Open Source paradigm with occultism. That's what the sources find notable as well. IPSOS (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, very weak keep I'd heard of them (not that that's really grounds for a keep lol) and like the idea of open source, that's why I haven't really given an opinion yet.  But they're already mentioned in Open Source Religion and could be merged there.Merkinsmum 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Liking open source doesn't make this article notable. --PEAR (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep. Keep.  Do not merge. Unlike some of the other Golden Dawn-related orders that were mass-nominated for AfD by Kephera975, this one is different in many ways.  I had not seen it previously but have now reviewed it and found it notable and verifiable.  This order is relatively new, but was created by Sam Webster, an author who is notable himself, including for example that he wrote Epilogue to the 1986 edition of  Israel Regardie's  Golden Dawn: The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites & Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order.  This order is unique in that it invites relationships with other orders and as it is based on the open-source software movement and take a collaborative approach rather than self-promotional, and have already been written-up in a variety of newspapers and magazine articles, which further confirms it is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable and that the article should be kept.  re-edited per reply to Merkinsmum below.  --Parsifal Hello 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment-reasons not to merge.  A couple editors have suggested merging with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. That has also been suggested on some of the other AfDs of Golden-Dawn related orders.  I apologize for duplicating some of this comment on more than one page, but since the AfD's were posted on an assembly line, I don't see how that can be avoided.  Some of the articles should be kept, and some of them should be deleted - the each have different notability and references and need to be treated as separate articles.   Merging them would cause ongoing problems.  Most claim some connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but that does not make it true.  The various orders are not directly related and there is no reference or source to support that they should be in the same article. If the articles are merged it will become much more difficult to disambiguate them and would create fertile ground for continual edit warring.  All of that aside, this organization (The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn ) is different than the others in that it does not even claim direct connection with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn on its website. This order states that it is part of the same current of thought, and traces its historical basis in philosophical terms, but it specifically avoids what the others do in that it states it is not a formal descendent of the original Golden Dawn order.  That alone is a reason not to merge this article into the others. --Parsifal Hello 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Parsifal you say this org has "been written-up in a variety of newspapers and magazine articles" if so please add them, then maybe it'd be definitely worth a keep. There's only one interview and one book reference in that are good sources at the mo.  I don't deny the idea of the OSOGD has probably been commented upon, but we need to prove it:)(put it in the article, rather than here.)Merkinsmum 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops - you got me - I was going too fast when I did my first search. I took up your challenge and did some more searching and it turns out that what I thought were publications were actually blogs, plus one physical magazine that turned out to be self-published by the OSOGD.  But they have been mentioned in the book listed in the article - I confirmed that on Google books, and the two blogs referenced in the article are respectable enough.  I've struck out that portion of my initial comment and changed from strong keep to keep.  --Parsifal Hello 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete NN --PEAR (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - IMO the third-party sources establish notability. However, if the article is merged, it should be merged to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., of which it is a trademark licensee. There is little connection with the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn so it should not be merged there. GlassFET 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging to  The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. would be a problem because they state on their website that they have no connection with any of the other orders that use those words.  They state that they offer a free license for any sincere order to use the words, and that they are not controlling the use of the words and any other order that uses the title is independent and separate from them.  --Parsifal Hello 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The site does clearly state here that they "certify" these groups for use of the words, but don't control the workings or teachings of the groups. This would simply have to be made clear in the merged article, which could contain very short sections, say a paragraph each, on each of the licensees and their distinctive features, if any. I agree that the better solution is to keep this article. I'm not so worried about the other orders. If they are notable, sources will be found and the articles can be restored or rewritten. GlassFET 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment So we add a website and a podcast. The editors here are seasoned and intelligent editors. It is confusing that they would completely ignore the requirements for independent sources in WP:N (Organizations). Kephera975 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Despite what others are saying here, this is an independent religion. It just needs to be better categorized rather than merging to other articles, which will cause problems. --Mnemnoch 17:33, 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.