Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations: Difference between revisions
m Archiving closed debates |
m Archiving closed debates |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Healthcareer Association}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Ethiopian Order of Saint Mary of Zion}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Ethiopian Order of Saint Mary of Zion}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woman's Club of Fayetteville}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woman's Club of Fayetteville}} |
Revision as of 18:18, 5 October 2008
Points of interest related to Organizations on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organizations and social programs. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.
Purge page cache | watch |
Organizations deletion
- 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 nomination withdrawn — reliable sources have been found to prove the subject's notability. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ORG - for two reasons: local chapters of international organizations are not considered notable, and notability is not established through reference reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (the source is primarily sourced to the lodge's website. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Local chapters are not notable in themselves, but they can prove notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Welcome Lodge as an example of one of these). The lodge claims to be the oldest operating Masonic lodge in the Americas, and it clearly is important in the early history of New Hampshire. There are five sources of which one is the lodge and one is the grand lodge. The other three are independent of the source. JASpencer (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the lodge's website itself admits that there were several lodges that were older than it is (by several years)... so the claim of being the oldest in the Americas is mistating the facts. I also know that there are several lodges that claim to be older (will find sources if needed). As for the other "independant" sources... the are sort of independant (being other masonic sites)... but they are not used to substantiate the notability of the lodge itself... they are used to substantiate that a few notable people were members. Notability is not inherited. Many lodges have a few notable members on their rolls... especially the ones that date to the revolutionary era... that does not make the lodge itself notable.
- "St. John's is proud to be the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in the United States, and indeed the Americas". They do claim to be the largest continuous lodge. I may have confused you by using the term operative. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Claim" is the operative word here... my point is that this is a claim that is disputed. For us to say that age makes this lodge an exception to the "local chapters are not notable" rule, we need more than the lodge's say so. We need independant sources. And as it turns out, the independant source disagree... According to Mark Talbert's "American Freemasons" (p.34), the oldest lodge in continual opperation in the Americas is Solomon's Lodge in Savanah, Georgia (founded 1734, two years before St. John's in New Hampshire.) So much for the "claim". Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dangerous ground suggesting that your use of terminology may have been misunderstood, the claim to be the oldest operative lodge is probably less significant than oldest lodge as the Operatives are quite a small body. In the US I think it's operated under another body anyway.
- ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "St. John's is proud to be the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in the United States, and indeed the Americas". They do claim to be the largest continuous lodge. I may have confused you by using the term operative. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So then, by extension, is the claim to be the the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in New Hampshire sufficient? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is I'll start drafting an article on the oldest surviving lodge in Little Snoring in the Mist... ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as your sources are Ref's are as good as thoes in this Article, go ahead. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is I'll start drafting an article on the oldest surviving lodge in Little Snoring in the Mist... ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So then, by extension, is the claim to be the the oldest continuously meeting Lodge in New Hampshire sufficient? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No clear assertion of notability, merely still surviving doesn't really cut it, also agree Blueboars point about independent sourcing.ALR (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Claim as oldest freemason lodge in continuous operation (or even if it's "only" second-oldest) is a rather strong claim of notability, backed up be reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For all we know, the claim could be completely bogus... There is a common issue with old lodges in the US: a lot of them claim 'continual existance' when in fact they had an interuption. A huge number of Masonic lodges closed their doors in the 1820s as a reuslt of the Morgan Affair (Freemaonry almost died out in the US). As Freemasonry began to grow again in the 1840s, some of these lodges were revived. It was common for Grand Lodges to declare that these revived lodges had been in 'continuous opperation', even though the reality was that they closed and were essentially recreated. I don't know if this is the case with St. John's in Portland or not... but it is a possibility we need to consider. To know for sure, we need reliable independant sources. And that is the problem... we don't have any independant sources... all we have is the lodge's website. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and comment - It's at least third oldest. Just south of the border, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts chartered St. John's Lodge in Boston four minutes after its own creation in 1733, and Philadelphia in turn claims it had independent lodges meeting earlier than that. "Who's oldest" is really not a good platform to base an article on - if a lodge is notable, it's notable for a lot more than just its age. Almost every Lodge has something unique to itself, but that does not in turn make the Lodge notable. MSJapan (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The claim to be the oldest lodge in continuous use is important but we are not taking much account of the seemingly important role it played in NH history, particularly during the revolutionary period. JASpencer (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seem to be a lot of notable members, and that should be enough. It also has proper referencing, and it would be a shame to delete such a useful page. 7 References, notable members, and the rest, is a clear acknowledgment of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Having notable members does not make an organization notable itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in multiple references while having a notable membership does. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No... Notability is not inherited no matter how many famous people are involved. I also note that the bulk of the list of members is cited to the lodge's webpage itself. Again, we have not solved the basic problem ... the claims to notability are not suported by reliable sources that are independant of the subject. That phrase is at the heart of WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said notability was inherited. I stated that it is using reliable sources which is clear from the reference section. I also stated that this page is further connected to many notable people, which shows that there is more out there that can be added in. It doesn't matter where a "bulk" of the information comes from, as the organization guidelines say that only a few independent sources need to prove notability where other information can then come from the primary source. This page has done just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No... Notability is not inherited no matter how many famous people are involved. I also note that the bulk of the list of members is cited to the lodge's webpage itself. Again, we have not solved the basic problem ... the claims to notability are not suported by reliable sources that are independant of the subject. That phrase is at the heart of WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in multiple references while having a notable membership does. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Having notable members does not make an organization notable itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources directly dealing with the lodge can be found and used to back up (or otherwise) the claims made by the article and the lodge's website. If not then there is no verifiable information about the lodge apart from a list of members that could be used to write an article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Change to Keep reliable sourcing added to support claims in article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guest, are you saying that this "Freemasonry in the Thirteen Colonies, by J. Hugo Tatsch Republished by Kessinger Publishing, 1995, ISBN 1564595951, ISBN 9781564595959" is not a reliable source? It is from the page. Are you saying that this " A Sturdy Oak of New England Life, The Granite Monthly, October 1903, Volume XXXV - Number 4" is also not one? You only need one third party reliable source if you want to get technical about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I had the page open from yesterday before the sources had been added and obviously forgot to refresh it, good job finding the sources, I've amended my view accordingly. Guest9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added in another source and expanded. How does it look now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point the sourcing looks good too me (see amended comment above), although I have no expertise on literature relating to the subject matter. The article's definitely in a much better state then it was when this discussion started which can only be a good thing. Guest9999 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough, it is in far better shape, but the article was nominated within 51 minutes of it being started. A notability tag and a civil discussion would have got the same result. JASpencer (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only hope that a closing admin would have taken that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to suggest that another way the situation could be avoided in the future would be to get the article up to scratch - with sources included - on a user space subpage before moving it into mainspace. Guest9999 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only hope that a closing admin would have taken that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well referenced, notable members list helps (this would equal alumni if it were a school). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. The article is indeed now sourced enough to pass WP:ORG. I have to agree with Guest9999... drafting this article in user space (including finding citations) and then moving it to article space would have been a better way to proceed. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the new sources and withdraw of the nominator. I would have closed it myself but there are several non withdrawn "delete" arguments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. leaning keep. The possible future deletion of articles does not mean the dab is deleted now. Also as nom itself notes, there are other places in the world called St. John's Lodge, who may have articles even when/if the lodges are deleted. TravellingCari 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- St. John's Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sent to MfD, which was apparently not the right place, so moved here. Unhelpful/unmaintainable dab page. In Freemasonry (which is what the dab focuses on now), almost every UGLE branch Masonic jurisdiction in the world has a St. John's Lodge or two, none of which have articles (and generally don't meet WP:N except for a few exceptions). Additionally, Google shows plenty of other types of places called "St. John's Lodge" - B&Bs, hotels, sporting lodges, etc. to the tune of 18,000 hits. MSJapan (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The solution is to expand this to include all the notable St. John's Lodges not delete it. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have to echo JoshuaZ - this needs editing and expanding, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (with option to recreate at a later time). The point of a dab page is to list articles that could all have the same title. Unless we have articles on the varous St. John's Lodges (masonic or otherwise) there is no point in having a dab. We will not have articles on the Masonic St. John's Lodges, since according to WP:ORG, local chapters of international organizations are not considered notable. That leaves us with the B&Bs, hotels, sporting lodges etc. I suppose some of them might be notable... but at this point we don't have any articles on them. If and when we do have articles, we can recreate a dab for them. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Blueboar's commentary on local chapters.--Vidkun (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Looking into this a bit more, I find that none of the three St. John's Lodges that were listed on the dab page had articles about them. I have removed the two Masonic Lodges (as not being notable). I have created a stub for the house in Regent's Park, London, that is owned by the Sultan of Brunai (I assume that a big house in a public park in London is considered notable... but if not, the article can be deleted.) We now have a dab page that lists one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, JASpencer (the creator of the dab page) has asked me to hold off on removing the Lodges from the dab page until this AfD is determined, so they are back on. Please just note that none of the Masonic Lodges are considered notable enough for an article according to WP:ORG, so we are still dealing with a dab page for only one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Looking into this a bit more, I find that none of the three St. John's Lodges that were listed on the dab page had articles about them. I have removed the two Masonic Lodges (as not being notable). I have created a stub for the house in Regent's Park, London, that is owned by the Sultan of Brunai (I assume that a big house in a public park in London is considered notable... but if not, the article can be deleted.) We now have a dab page that lists one article. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It strikes me that until such time until there are sufficient articles about St Johns Lodges that actually demonstrate notability there is little justification, so my preference is for Delete
- ALR (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't want to make this a general AfD on the masonic lodges, but my understanding is that individual chapters of an organization can be notable if they have independent notability. The Masonic lodges listed include the one that owns the George Washington Inaugural Bible, as well as the oldest operating lodge in the United States. I'd hazard a guess that these are likely notable by themselves. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited... owning a notable bible does not make its owner notable. Neither does claiming to being the oldest lodge in continual opperation, especially when the claim is not substantiated by reliable sources.Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree the point, there may be an opportunity for individual lodges to be sufficiently notable to create an article about them, the purpose of a dab page is not to create a list of possible future articles. The cart has been put so far in front of the horse in this instance, the horse is going to have difficulty finding it.
- ALR (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (As creator). There are already two pages that it links to (albeit St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire is currently in an AfD) and I've just put up two redirects, although they may be challenged. "St. John's" often seems to be the title for the first lodge founded by many Grand Lodges, for example Massachsuetts, New York and New Hampshire, tend to be in important cities and so tend to attract more than their fair share of politicians, etc. If I had any hope of being listened to I would suggest that the nominator temporarily removed the AfD until the status of the links that the page points to is decided. As at least one article it points to is not up for deletion then at the very least this will end up a redirect so. JASpencer (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until the other AfDs/RfDs are completed, and then delete if there a fewer than 2 Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just want to note that JASpencer's recent additions are all to redirects and not to articles. Those redirects are extremely questionable (for example, redirecting St. John's Lodge, (New York) to George Washington Inaugural Bible) and will be raised for discussion at RfD.
- In other words, he has created questionable redirects and linked to them on a questionable dab page, to make it seem as if the dab page is legitimatly pointing to articles about the various St. John's Lodges, when in fact the links are redirected to sub-secions of other articles, on other topics, which contain passing refferences to a St. John's Lodge. Gaming the system? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blueboar, I would like to refer you to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CALM. A course in good manners may also be a good idea. I'm not sure why you are getting so het up about a disambiguation page but the redirect was created because St. John's lodge was mentioned in Wikipedia in an article created a long time ago. Not only may St. John's lodge refer to the gang in New York, but it does. That's why there's a redirect. It looks like you're either over-reacting or simply trying to smear another editor. I know you don't do apologies, but I think that one is in order here. JASpencer (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully this will stop the whole sorry episode. When I first created the page it was done as a redirect to the Bible. The reason I made it into a disambiguation page is that I found mentions in other places and thought a disambiguation would be more appropriate. So unless I have stunning foresight, the plan was not to create a redirection to save a disambiguation page that did not even exist. JASpencer (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Blueboar, redirects are disambiguate-able too. The are in no way "illegitimate" article. Indeed, some disambiguation pages have nothing but redirects to subsections, or unlinked entries with section links in the descriptions. Perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with raising them at RfD, and if they are deleted and the entries linking to subsection don't need to be disambiguatend, then the dab page can (and should) be removed. But not first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because there is no evidence provided to think this is not useful or the links cannot be considered notable in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note - its a disambig, so all you need are two included pages that are notable for there to be notability enough to warrant a disambig) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is the problem... we only have one page on something that is notable - St. John's Lodge (London), all the rest are non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2008
- So you say right now, but the community has not determined such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is the problem... we only have one page on something that is notable - St. John's Lodge (London), all the rest are non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2008
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Imperial Ethiopian Order of Saint Mary of Zion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Contested because "notable, many ghits". Bizarrely, there are only 71 Google hits[1], which after excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors boils down to 16 distinct Google hits[2], no Google News hits, 1 Google books hit and no Google scholar hits. Since the article gives no indication of notability either, there is no reason to suppose that this order meets the WP:NOTE guideline. Fram (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Keep I'm not up to date on the present situation in Ethiopia. If the people who established the order are, in fact, the genuine monarchs of that nation I would think that an order established by them should be notable enough. Redddogg (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Order established by genuine monarch, same notability as for example Blood of Jesus Christ (military order) or Argonauts of Saint Nicholas.Wiki is not paper and ghits test is not objective. Do you searched in other languages? --Yopie 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would disagree with the notability even if they were established by genuine monarchs (since notability is not inherited but must be established on its own), but the order is established by a Crown Prince of a royal house in exile, not by a "genuine monarch". Ethiopia is a republic. An "Imperial Decree" by an emperor without a country hsa little value (or at least not much international recognition). Fram (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "Ghits is not objective": you were the one that removed the Prod because there were "many ghits". You did not provide any evidence for that claim, while I showed the opposite to be true. And searching in other languages: if you want this article to be kept, you will have to do a minimal effort, like telling us what weshould be searching for. The artcile doesn't give a translation, nor does any of the ghits. How are we supposed to know what search term in what other language we are supposed to use? You ahev to give us some evidence of notability, not empty claims. Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:: Just added some sources, search continues. --Yopie 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as the only claim to notability wouldn't be sufficient even if sourced. Exiled Monarchs can write proclamations every day, but they are not notable, hence the lack of coverage even in the news.Yobmod (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Yopie. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But Yopie is incorrect, since he is not a genuine monarch, and he haz not provided any evidence for any of his other claims. Fram (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I´m not claimant for monarchy :-) --Yopie 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Yeesh. What's next? The Saxon pretender to the English throne (there actually is one) institutes "new royal orders," and she gets to have an article on them? RGTraynor 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain I think we need at least some minimal third part documentation, although I recognize the extreme difficulty in finding sources for this. Whether the notability is intrinsic is irrelevant if we have nothing suitable for V. Personally, it sounds quite likely, but that's just my own impression. DGG (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability established in the article, and I cannot find any additional sources. --Banime (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: not everything with "Saint Mary" in the title is about religion... Fram (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: any article related to "Saint Mary" can be related to religion. Discerning issues such as these is what this discussion is for. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: not everything with "Saint Mary" in the title is about religion... Fram (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Request expansion & see if the author or others can give more. Could be notable and significantSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although past AfDs do not set precedent, there is a past discussion which might assist in moving this discussion forward. A member of an Indian royal family, given that Indian royalty is no longer recognized, is similiar to the article at hand. This AfD is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Sangram Singh. Although this might provide more perspective, I do acknowledge the important statements made above by Redddogg, Yopie, and Swimmer1207. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: To be honest, what "important statements?" I'm seeing "Gee, I dunno, maybe this might possibly be notable, who knows?" For one thing, this is not an AfD on the pretender to the Ethiopian throne; it's an AfD on a made-up something-or-other whipped up by Some Guy who had a relative who was a monarch. There are no reliable sources about this "order," it meets no notability criteria, and quoting WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Heck, this is even a piker by the standard of fantasy "orders" - the "Order of the Pelican," a service honor of the medieval reenactionist Society for Creative Anachronism, has over 18,000 hits. [3]. Valid policy grounds to advocate Keep are one thing; I-dunnos are otherwise. RGTraynor 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Woman's Club of Fayetteville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable organization, currently unsourced. My own search found no references except the local newspaper. Was prodded, prod removed without improvement by the author. Huon (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - fixed it up just a bit. If a cite can be provided for the first library thing, I think it deserves a keep. 99.149.172.83 (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: I've contacted the editor-in-chief of Fayetteville's newspaper, and he'll get back to me later about A) founding, B) library, and C) impact. I think this article has potential (particularly if the library thing checks out, among other things). 99.149.172.83 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Want everyone to know I'm the IP above. Got a few cites. I've rewritten it a bit; trying to get cites for the library yet. 127.0.0.1 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: I've contacted the editor-in-chief of Fayetteville's newspaper, and he'll get back to me later about A) founding, B) library, and C) impact. I think this article has potential (particularly if the library thing checks out, among other things). 99.149.172.83 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have the book you're looking for. It's called "Hometown Heritage Vol. II" by Lucille Miller Johnson. It's a rather obscure book (along with it's companion, Volume I, which I'm waiting to come available for checkout) Both books are available for reference in the Main Cumb. Pub. Library in the history/geneology section upstairs - if you're from around here and don't want to wait for the Fayetteville Observer's editor to get back to you.
As far as the wiki page, I did update the the references to include Ms. Johnson's book. I sincerely hope I'm posting this note in the right manner! I started the page, and I'd like to see it stay! kelliejojo (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the references don't show why its notable on a wide scale. We66er (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This organization is clearly verifiable and I'm inclined to keep it around as a historical women's organization. The article hasn't been around long, I say let it stay and see if it can be improved. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm working to improve the article to make it more "encyclopedia-like." I will continue to drum up useful information and add it asap.
kelliejojo (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - until such time as somebody points me to the "Local" clause of WP:N, I'm inclined to accept it as notable. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.