Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stella Matutina

Mediation

 * Comment: There doesnt need to be a consensus to form another article that is an offshoot of the main article. The Stella Matutina is not the Golden Dawn, so it wouldnt belong in the main article to begin with. An obvious mistake in including it into the article. Now that more sources have come about to state this, the material should only briefly be included into the main article, and a sub-page should exist for it (which does exist, its this one). Zos 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the subject of exactly what material should be in the main article and what should be split into subarticles were topics of mediation when you rudely and unilaterally decided otherwise. -999 (Talk) 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, you misunderstand mediation. Mediation is not for consensus. I am also not the one who nominated these articles for deletion as soon as I declined mediation. So please stop talking about mediation, its not going to happen. This is to discuss the deletion of the article. Thanks. Zos 23:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: no, you are mistaken. The mediation process very clearly states that the mediators simply assist the parties to achieve consensus. Were you expecting something else? That's arbitration. -999 (Talk) 00:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * yes and they do not force consensus, and this is all I mean. Zos 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: However, the user above withdrew from the meditation rather than wait for a consensus on the above. -999 (Talk) 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I withdrew from mediation because of your attacks, threats, and otherwise rude remarks. Zos 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this nominated?
This was nominated, by user 999, who created it for me to work on, as to not add any information to the existing Ordo Stella Matutina (which is also up for deletion). This article already has many citations and as far as I can see, the article does not meet any needs for deletion. And no who has voted to delete has stated any criteria for deletion other than it is "redundant" to the main article or is reproduced in the main article (it is not reproduced in the main article if anyone bothered to read it, for there are almost no citations for the revolt in the golden dawn, nor are there any citations for the offshoots, i had just recieved book sources for theses and have been adding them where i can, so when the main article is unprotected, me and other editors can expand the main article). Well, the main article is protected and no one can work on it right now, so changes have to be made after its unprotected. Once this is done, it will be more relevant, as its a historic matter. The page is obviously expandable, and is being expanded right now. So before others vote here, please check the history, as well as the talk pages before you just slap on your vote, because this is more than just a nom for AfD. Thanks. Zos 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot the point. The point is, that this shouldnt be deleted just because the creator of the article wishes it deleted, which is the only valid reason thus far. It just shows his unwillingness to contribute to it, nothing more. Zos 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)