Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids

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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Order of Druids

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

• The New Order of Druids is a website with Alexa rank near 194000. No assertion is made, and no indication is given that the folks who run it command any respect or have otherwise been noted in the Neopagan community. Pilatus 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alexa rank, no evidence of media mentions, no books about them, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep This article is not in violation with Wikipedia policy. Notable organisation New Order of Druids. Is mentioned in "The Solitary Druid: Walking the Path of Wisdom and Spirit" by Rev. Robert Lee (Skip) Ellison (Archdruid-Ar nDraiocht Fein (ADF)) page 245. This was in the talk page, you could have read this yourself if you had done your homework. Vorak 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One mention on a single page of one book? That seems awfully thin. If "The Solitary Druid" is considered to be a major defining work on Neopaganism, that might establish notability, but given that the book doesn't have a page of its own, that seems unlikely. Vanigo 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that that is very thin, but do not agree that a book used to establish notability should have a Wikipedia entry. It would help if we knew what the book actually says (for example, that information could be in the article). Kusma (討論) 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not exactly what I meant. If there was an entire chapter devoted to the organization in a not-particularly-notable book, that'd establish notability, or if there was even a single sentence in an extremely important book, that'd do it, but a single reference in a book of questionable importance? That's two strikes and you're out, IMHO. Vanigo 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I completely agree with that. I had justed wanted to point out that the absence of a Wikipedia article does not mean a book (or anything else) is not important / authoritative. Kusma (討論) 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alexa rank and nomination. --Andy Saunders 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This and other related articles (see David Dom, Karayana, etc.) have been led to a no consensus by what appear to be meatpuppets. --Bugturd Talk 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not surprised to see that the same thing happens here as has happened to almost every other article I ever contributed to Wikipedia... whatever valid proof or argument is given is waved away or minimized in order to get the article deleted at any cost. Well I can tell you already that it has been the very last time I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, and I won't be the only one leaving. By the time you people are done deleting everything, Wikipedia will only consist of your own User article pages, hope you'll have fun with them. I really can't waste my time and energy on this stuff any more, I have actual important things to do. Vorak 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am sorry that you are having such a bad time with Wikipedia. It would probably help if you could write about something else than you and your friends, though. Starting things like this is also not helping. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn website/club. If the group is more significant than that, astound us with references -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable small organisation.Obina 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Start from scratch - talk page notes that it is licensed content from N.O.D., and it reads like Madison Avenue, Nebraska copy. How many members are there? One mention in Skip's book (I have it at home) does not make the group notable, as I recall there being a lot of smaller groups mentioned there. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you check what that book says about this group and post it here so we have more information? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ergh, turns out I have a different book by Skip. I'll check and see if any of my friends have it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless importance in the neopaganism community can be shown (disregard my vote if I forget to change it in that case). As a website, it clearly fails to be notable enough. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing anything indicating any actual impact -- however small -- on the world and plenty of puffery. And Gad, that "Overview" sounds like it was translated from the Japanese. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep References? That's a good one, as if any reference whatsoever would be taken serious. The reference of the book, for example, is waved off just because the book has no article on Wikipedia. Why do you think that is? Because either you already deleted it, or because you would end up deleting it anyway so people stop bothering to contribute. Aside from the book, The Druid Network (TDN), Eadhadh and ADF find NOD or its sub-organisations important enough to give it a webpage of its own. Or it could be mentioned that NOD was founded on the same day as TDN, already has set up one local grove and is in the process of setting up more local groves in Europe and North America, or that it currently has over 600 members, and offers a free online Druid college that currently contains over 250 students worldwide (NOD and its Grove of Dana college is one of the very few Druid organisations in the world that offer teaching online and believe it should not come at any monetary cost!). But of course, all this will be regarded as is predictable, and I could go and work on an actual list of references, but honestly, why would I? Just to see it being trashed? No, thanks. It's not taken serious anyway, whatever any contra-delete vote comes up with, and you will keep digging until you find another reason to get an article deleted. If Alexa ranking won't give you a reason, you'll keep looking until you find another reason. Oh and nice template on top of this page, you might as well just say that any "keep" votes whatsoever will be disregarded anyway and that the nomination for deletion is just a formality because it's already a decided cause from the start (as it always is). Of course, it's easy to gather some Wikipedia members and get them to vote delete as well, but when people do the same to obtain keep votes, it's suddenly a disgrace. Sorry, but I really won't play along those games any more, and I'm sure that others feel the same way. By the way for your information, we did contribute other articles too, such as Merlin's Oak and the English translation for Gwenc’hlan Le Scouëzec by Vorak, but of course it all doesn't matter. If you want to delete this article, so be it, I won't be around to put it back up anyway, but Wikipedia's loss is our gain. Wikipedia will only decrease in number of articles (and as a result, degrade in quality) and let other wiki sites grow larger instead. So, keep up the good work! Aneirin 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, knowing how many members you have (from the website it was difficult to tell if there were 60 or 600) is helpful. However how many of those 600 are defined from mailing lists? WP:WEB likes to have online organizations written about by others, and to have a large member base for forum-type sites. If it was 600 local/active folks, it'd be easier to verify your importance. Honestly, the fact that most of your copy comes straight from N.O.D.'s website or members makes people all the more suspect of the actual importance. As I said, I'm checking on the Solitary Druid reference; however I could find no mention on ADF's website of your organization, as you claimed: [1]. Am I missing something, or is it in the members-only section? I searched there as well but maybe you know the page where it's listed. We're trying to help you, but you do have to understand how things work here; it's not based around what we know, it's what we can prove. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What the hell is you're problem? All of you? Do you really think that the only good druidic website is one you should pay for? Then you people are nothing near druids you're just plain kapitalists. About this article itself. What is you're problem with it? Why don't you people want to connect yourself in anyway anymore with the NOD. Especially since you made the article larger not so long ago. I said this once before... You people are not worthy of being called encyclopedia you are something to laugh with. Ravenlady 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or prune to stub. I checked with Skip himself, and the original submission for the book, or close to it, can be found here (site is framed, main page is here). The material was sent in by David Dom and edited "all of them to drop down to just a paragraph or two". I get the impression therefore that this was part of the laundry list of groups at the end of the book, and as it was submitted by the founder, it suffers the same circular-verifiability problems as anything off of the N.O.D. website or The Druid Network. Until this group achieves success outside their own circles, I can't see us having a page on them, especially ad copy. I would be willing to help them prune out things that can't be verified from outside the group, but I fear they won't like the result. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nae'blis's evidence based reasoning. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nae'blis, who clearly knows the subject area much better than I do. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep The online college of the New Order of Druids, the Grove of Dana is accepted by the international Druid Network as a college that provides a good long-distance course on the different aspects and grades within Druidry: Grove of Dana on the Druid Network website

Torc 23:47, 2 February 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.