Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn

: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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

=[[The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn]]=

non-notable 999 (Talk) 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom - (disclosure: I started the article) -999 (Talk) 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: After searching amazon for books under the title and not finding anything, I'd have to agree; NN. Zos 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (same should apply for all the sub-organisations listed on that page). SM247My Talk 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V does not allow the use of material from the Order's website in any other article. Once deleted, the contents are not appropriate to be added to any other article. -999 (Talk) 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I really do not understand what part of WP:V you are referring to. I was under the impression that this is related to the Hermetic Order and thus would only merit a mention there, as it is not sufficiently important for its own page. I did not argue for deletion. SM247My Talk 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I refer to the part that says that self-published websites may only be used as sources in an article about the person or organization that publishes the website. If the only source of information about an org is its website, then it either has its own article on WP or can't be mentioned, except maybe in an external link. -999 (Talk) 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You and I are at cross-understanding here. I was talking about the similar sub-organisations to this listed on the Hermetic Order page and nothing to do with sources. Fair enough. SM247My Talk 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is discussion pertaining to this nomintation, not others that have not been nominated for deletion. Also, the original cretion of the sub pages were done through consensus. If the articles were to be merged back, they would then again be made into sub articles again based on size of the main page. Just thought you should know that there is more here than a simple nomination. Zos 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually, merge is a valid vote on an AfD. Maybe you should read up on the process? -999 (Talk) 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:I was refering to "all of the other sub pages". This would be for other nominations for deletion, where as, this is for only one article. Zos 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

::At the time, I did not notice they were also up for deletion, which is irrelevant because anyway because my suggestion would be a consistent application of policy with respect to those proposed for deletion. SM247My Talk 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically, since the author is requesting deletion, wouldn't this be a speedy candidate? --Coredesat talk 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think that meets the criteria for speedy...Zos 03:07, 29 June 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.