Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe

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. Consensus is against retaining this article, regardless of whether it's useful, or other articles exist. Star Mississippi 13:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Royal and Dynastic Order of the Eagle of Hohoe

Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe

Non-notable chivalric orders under the patronage of a non-resident Ghanaian tribal king. Both created in article space and moved to draft space by User:DoubleGrazing saying "Mostly unreferenced, and no evidence of notability". They were both moved back to article space by the originator after adding what appear to be low-quality references, but the articles still do not speak for themselves. Nothing in the articles is about significant coverage by independent sources. No evidence of recognition by any nations. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Royalty and nobility, Ghana, and Germany. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The institution of chieftaincy in Ghana is a system that structures and regulates the activity of rulers. It is written in Ghana’s constitution (chapter 270-277)(1) and the Chieftaincy Act of 2008(2). Those who hold the sacred title of “Chief” in Ghana are sovereign rulers in their traditional areas. These sovereign chiefs as recognized by Ghana and the rest of the world as subnational kingdoms which have existed for sure for hundreds of years and in the case of others (Ashanti Kingdom (3), thousands. These kingdoms have the right to self rule within their kingdoms with civil law being carried out by the chief/king. The Traditional councils(4), which holds an advisory position (National House of Chiefs) within the Republic of Ghana . This council and the Republic as well as many other nations and kingdoms, recognizes the right of the chief/king to their Fons Honorum. Therefor, each Divisional Chief/King and above has the right to make any honors system they chose which is recognized by other active and dynastic kingdoms and principalities. This can be shown by recognition of countries in the EU and the Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog (ROGFD)(5) of Sefwi-Obang in Ghana as it gives with it nobility. For example, the Real Confraria de São Teotónio, recognizes the noble title given by the ROGFD. Both of these orders are recognized by the Augustan Society.(6)

1. https://www.modernghana.com/GhanaHome/regions/constitution.asp?menu_id2=0&s=w

2. https://lawsghana.com/post-1992-legislation/table-of-content/Acts%20of%20Parliament/CHIEFTAINCY%20ACT,%202008%20(ACT%20759)/169

3. Prempeh, I., Boahen, A. A., & Prempeh, A. (2003). The History of Ashanti Kings and the Whole Country Itself and Other Writings (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.

4. https://www.kofitutu.com/1567/

5. https://royalhousemim.org/armsorders_goldenfiredog

6. https://www.augustansociety.org/ Vwhippo (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have more references than other pages about orders from sub-national monarchies, which are published on wikipedia, with few sources, and mostly referenced by their own page.

I used most of the same references as the Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu and the Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu, both of which have few references, mostly referencing their own webpage, and most of the links don´t work Leo0274 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing these pages to other sub-national monarchy's orders pages that have been published, and are still online, on Wikipedia, these two have a lot more references. Specially when compared to the pages of the Order of the Lion of Godenu and the Order of the Elephant of Godenu, which only reference their own website or links that don't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.153.46 (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstate my previous argument: my pages have a lot more references than most other pages of the same topic (Orders from sub-national monarchies), for example Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu and the Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu, which mostly reference their own website and broken links. Leo0274 (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant. Your article may be better, but is it good enough? Here's a simple question: @Leo0274 which sources cited meet are reliable and meet WP:SIGCOV? Can you list two sources thgat discuss this entity at significant lenght, and explain what makes them reliable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is better than an article that was cosidered good enough to be posted, then I believe it is good enough.

On reliability: I think that the Order´s own website is the most reliable source of information, at least when talking about the insignia, ranks and information like that. Leo0274 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On notability, there is even a link in Portuguese talking about it, so it was notable enough to have foreigners talk about it Leo0274 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If something exist is relevant because it shows how the guidelines and rules are applied, creating a precendent. And rules must be applied eqqually to every page.

So, if page A exists, has broken links for references and is referencing their own wesite, then page B, that also references B´s webpage and has a higher number of references, should also exist.

Speacially if A and B are both the same thing. 189.36.253.4 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources cited may or may not support the basic veracity of this topic, but they do not establish notability, and while that remains the case, everything else is moot. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My article has more references than other articles on the same subject that are currently online, so my article should be good enough to stay online as well Leo0274 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one who has been in the study of Royal, Noble and Chivalrous orders, I don't see the harm in the page existing, especially since it has a proper article defending its existence and a history behind it. I currently am in the process of writing an article on Ghanaian Orders of Chivalry and this page has been extremely helpful with details I didn't know about. It is important that the site continues to have this page and any others that can be supported with reference articles and the correct formatting. 166.181.83.42 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another reference to speak for the notability of the Orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo0274 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 October 2022 (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.