Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of the Elodrym


 * 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. - Bobet 09:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Order of the Elodrym
Non-notable club. Google finds little signs of this existing outside Wikipedia and their own web site. Weregerbil 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable group, as per nominator. --FreelanceWizard 10:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete for reasons above. Nuttah68 12:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is still small. It was never intended as a vanity page, and was added mainly because of it's recognition by the state of CA. If you choose to delete it, that's fine, I'll trust your judgement. As long as it's not a personal bias that is responsible for the choice to delete it, then as long as you feel it is not notable enough, I will also agree to deletion of the page until such time as it becomes noteable enough to be deserving of a wiki page. I will note however, that it is nither garbledegook nor vandalism as the description of "Speedy Delete" would indicate. thank you. --Arkayne Magii 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do you have some verification of state recognition that you can provide for us? If you can verify that it's a state-recognized religious organization, for instance, that would make it notable. Also, I don't think this is a speedy candidate because it, to an extent, does assert its notability in the text. --FreelanceWizard 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

--Arkayne Magii 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The three scanned documents at the bottom of the 'Who We Are' page Elodrym - Who We Are provide the necessary documentation of state recognition as a CA nonprofit unincorporated religious association.
 * state recognition documentation page 1
 * state recognition documentation page 2
 * state recognition documentation page 3
 * Hmm. That's not really what I was hoping for. Anyone can readily establish themselves as such an association, I imagine, just from looking at the form. I was thinking more that you had documents that you'd been recognized as a religion by the state, which is a bit of a different thing from what I understand. Even if you had that, I'd be curious about third-party media coverage. In this case, unless there's evidence that this organization passes WP:ORG (with which I generally agree), my vote will remain delete for the reason I stated. --FreelanceWizard 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While myself and others within the organization have indeed been interviewed in newspapers about religious and spiritual beliefs and within the role of religious leaders in our respective communities, that was long before the formation of the organization itself, which this article covers, and thus would not apply.
 * I do understand not including everything that pops up as an article on Wikipedia for the preservation of the integrity of the information, and so I have no problem with deleting it until such time as the organization has earned the notability required. --Arkayne Magii 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once there's verifiable notability, Wikipedia would I'm sure welcome an article on your organization. Thanks for being understanding of the consensus policy. :) --FreelanceWizard 02:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per nom. Also 'state recognition' seems to be tokenary at best as the organization is NOT incorporated. Jon Cates 13:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote yet. At least locally, starting a non-profit corporation is a slight matter of filling out a form and paying a fee to the state government.  It does verify the group's existence if someone took the slight trouble to do this.  Not sure this is notable, but the applicable precedents (if not guidelines) would seem to be among small independent churches, covens, and similar spiritual organisations.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per above discussion. &mdash;Xyra e l 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as soon as possible A Load of Rubbish. This is a infamous club, only famous clubs, such as G-Unit worth reading should have an article -Plowright 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, It is an association, not a club, as there is no charge for membership and is open to anyone. Second, it is certainly not rubbish, since it has a specific purpose and states such on the site, and third, not everyone would agree that an article on G-Unit is worth reading. --Arkayne Magii 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Arkayne Magii, I agree that not everyone would agree that an article on G-Unit is worth reading I was using it as an example of a famous club. Anyway, it is unfair that you think you should be allowed to keep your article when my article on the Doctor Who Unofficial Fan Club was deleted for the same reason that yours is on AfD discussion. Notability. Elodrym is not notable, just like the Doctor Who Unofficial Fan Club. It is also Advertising your club to try to get more members. And more people would be interested in 50 cent's G-unit crew than your Elodrym. I have been through every search engine, Google, MSN but i still can't find a thing on Elodrym. And from what it says on your website it does sound like a load of rubbish to me.
 * "it does sound like a load of rubbish to me" Very childish to make things personal. Shall we move on to more relevant comments? - Prismaticscribe
 * Well, I'm certainly sorry that you feel that way. I did not put it up here for publicity, however. If I had, I would not have tried my best to keep it as neutral and specific as possible. There is a difference between advertising a thing and making information available about it.


 * You said, "it is unfair that you think you should be allowed to keep your article when my article on the Doctor Who Unofficial Fan Club was deleted for the same reason that yours is on AfD discussion"


 * I already agreed that it is not yet notable enough based on the current guidelines, and as shown by others, and I still agree that it should be deleted. What I don't understand is why you feel it is "rubbish". I don't expect you to explain your opinion, as I understand not everyone sees things as I do. So I'll note your words, contemplate them, learn from the difference in perspective, and keep doing what I'm doing.

--Arkayne Magii 04:28, 13 August 2006 (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.