Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Order

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Universal Order
An article about a neo-nazi organisation which doesn't exist. How exactly is this verifiable information? And, if at all, is it to be verfified by evidence for its existence or by evidence for its non-existence? --Pjacobi 09:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * You may want to compare this VfD. --Pjacobi 09:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood the entry. It's not an organisation in the sense of having a leader and headquarters, but more a philosophy. If we could check out the related books, I see no reason not to keep. Agentsoo 09:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh? But what's encyclopedic about one person's private philosophy, which didn't get any following? --Pjacobi 09:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Everything, it can be an important concept for peoplke studying Manson's followers. Theodore W. 09:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, this isn't one persons private philosophy, but rather the public philosophy of a handful of notable people. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 12:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a fringe group, no doubt, but notable. —Morning star 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Smacks of hoaxterism. Hitler to Rockwell to Manson is stretching a philosophy pretty thin. If there are more than a handful of people adhereing to this philosophy, I would be surprised. Hamster Sandwich 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge has no notability in this context other than the originator, could be confused the term from mathematics (more notable by far), or philosophy (stoicism and mysticism both use the term). At very least rename and disambig. Stirling Newberry 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disturbingly well sourced for such a short article.  Could benefit from expansion. siafu 23:15, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.