Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per consensus of established editors. Flood of apparent single-purpose accounts do not address policy/guideline-based reasons for deletion. --Coredesat 08:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Hightower

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Kingdom of Hightower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod; rationale was "Organization with no referenced assertion of notability; delete per WP:CORP." I can't find any reliable independent sources to establish this organization's notability. --Muchness 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep for the preservation of medieval history as taught in schools, it's an enhancement to better learning or understanding. They are community oriented and are not for profit. Also a legit Canadian Corporation. See external links to Industry Canada in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.61.202 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 August 2007— 207.112.61.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Neutral. Their main website is based on geocities.com which makes me doubtful about this kingdom. But otherwise this seems notable. Shabda 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is well maintained. Organization is established under LUTES name. Suggest that a Wiki article on LUTES be linked to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.61.202 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 August 2007 Duplicate !vote struck. ELIMINATORJR 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This IP has made 2 contribs to wikipedia both oof them votes to keep in this afd [[1]] [2]. This is a possible single purpose account--Cailil talk 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Faithlessthewonderboy 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As with the Society for Creative Anachronism, this is a group, with affilliates (clubs) across North America that preserves interest in medieval history by encouraging re-enactments, etc. I'm not sure why the article isn't entitled "LUTES", since that's the organization that oversees this, but maybe it's more likely to be found here. 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources" - there are no seconary reliable sources for this article. Unless it can be rewritten and verified using reliable sources it has to go. The Society for Creative Anachronism article has 15 refs this has 0--Cailil talk 16:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Somebody else deleted 15:52, 5's ID from this discussion. According to the history I beleive it's Mandsford's comment. Accidental vandalism makes even this page up for deletion! Copied with minor edit from history section: 15:52, 5 August 2007 Mandsford (1,285 bytes) Anastasia the Innocent 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Actual Anastasia, Mandsford may have typed 5~ rather than 4[3] the user id was excluded from the original post so nobody deleted it. I don't follow what you mean when you say "Accidental vandalism makes even this page up for deletion!", could you explain?--Cailil talk 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cailil. I thought I saw his ID on his post earlier and then later it was gone. That's why I went to look to see if I could find out what happened. Maybe it's stigmatism. With discussions ongoing it's good to see who wrote what so new people joining this forum can read previous comments before making theirs. Thanks for your quick reply. :) Anastasia the Innocent 20:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought I had signed my comment. Sometimes I overlook it. Signed now, for eiether the second or first time. Mandsford 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (Well, I did sign it and it disappeared again. Must be a gremlin in the system) Mandsford 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay :) BTW i've put a notice at WP:ANI about the IPs and possible vote-stacking.--Cailil talk 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This group has been in existance for only four years compared to the four decades that the Society for Creative Anachronism has. The Kingdom of Hightower's reliability as mentioned in the article under community, states that their members volunteer their time with such organizations as Casa Loma's Renaissance Festival, 55 Division Police Week, community events like Taste of the Danforth and Riverdale's Canada Day, among others. The internet is not the only source that validates the existance of a group. See recently added "Media" online and print sources of Hightower's article. Expanding LUTES article that links to this page is recommended. Anastasia the Innocent 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. There ARE references to this group. It's called real life - not the internet. Are the moderators that uneducated that they only use the internet for references? It's obvious this group is still small, so there are no references on the internet - why would there be? As someone else has pointed out, the group is well known at Casa Loma and provides educational demos to school children. I'd suggest you contact someone in hightower and request real life references. I am an active member of the Society of Creative Anachronism (SCA). It is well known that the SCA lost their right to use Casa Loma. Instead, Hightower was invited to fill in some of the gaps. Why don't one of you moderators call Casa Loma and confirm the affiliation? Or is there a hidden agenda? I feel like quiting the SCA and I think at least one of you moderators are part of the SCA...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.72.87 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 August 2007
— 74.123.72.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This Ip has no other edits to wikipedia this is their only contribution to the encyclopedia so far. They are also from the same region as 207.112.61.202. Vote-stacking is against wikipedia's rules, as is the creation of single purpose accounts to manufacture consensus in an AFD--Cailil talk 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, if someone from another organization has reason to vote in favour of this article staying active, how can that be vote-stacking? The IPs don't look the same to me, maybe I'm missing something. I'm going to remove myself from this discussion for a while as I dont' see the logic in all this.
Hightower's wiki page has been up for a year and suddenly this is going on.
I might just delete the article myself and spare everyone this agrivation.
Good health, Waes Haeil, Anastasia the Innocent 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So a well respected institute such as Ryerson University is not considered as a notable, reliable source or a heritage landmark like Casa Loma? That is strange.
But I do see your point about this deck stacking business.
It's very clear.
You should be advising the editors of these articles on how to improve their pages, NOT THREATEN THEM because of some bias opinion or some other thing going on.
As wiki editors and admins, you should be helping people build better pages. Give them the tools they need to keep building on that. Make Wikipedia better.
This is probably why Wikipedia is not a reliable encyclopedia to begin with. That's why the majority of people refuse to quote from it as it always subject to change, by uniformed indivduals, or vandals, etc. And when I see this silly nonsense that's going on here today, I have to shake my head and say, "some people have too much time on their hands and do not use it for the betterment of all".
Good health and many blessings, Anastasia the Innocent 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP It says that this group is a registered non-profit organization. That's all the credibility it needs to survive and function. It seems to me that this group is being attacked for another reason.— 82.193.219.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
  • KEEPRe: using sources on the internet. The SCA does have many online references but that's because they have existed for so long. I suggest the persons responsible for up keeping the article should cite references outside the internet. thanks. katherine_annmarie_king@yahoo.com— 68.46.218.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
  • KEEPOk, I created a user ID here so I appear as a person (how does this even make a difference?). The article should be kept for sure. Can the creator Anastasia in Innocent cite non-internet sources to validate the entry? Does this help? It's been mentioned by someone already and I agree with the above statement that you should be helping and assisting people in improving the way they create articles. This over use of power reminds me of craigslist where people can arbitrarily remove something just because they feel like it or don't like something on a personal level. This seems to me like an attack by someone in the SCA (the person who initiated the complaint). Where are they now to defend themselves or state their true intention and purpose of the complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Saz (talk • contribs) — Lord Saz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Delete per lack of sources attesting to notability Corpx 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • hello... I'm trying to establish what criteria they are wanting if established articals and announcments via reputable sources like Ryerson & Casa Loma don't seem to measure up. this is a very young group and you can't compare it to one that's been established for 40 yrs. This wiki page has been up for a year so why now, all of a sudden it's being threatened for deletion. I agree that this discussion shouldn't be disrupted, but this notice was only flagged a day or so ago and it seems that there is little or no time to state a case. It appears like a done deal. This page has taken a year to build and I feel bullied into making swift changes. I'm 52, not a spring chicken any more.

I have a question. If there are two individuals in the same location, why can there only be one vote? I think that if there are two people either living together or living a mile away from one another, their opinion should still count. I'm unsure of how democracy works in this tribunal.

Who do we appeal to?

Any and all help is appreciated. Thank you. Anastasia the Innocent 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

They should create an account. That way two people on the same computer can edit (and vote) as individuals. Obviously this is isn't fool-proof, as in the case of sock-puppets, but it helps. If someone is interested enough in contributing to wikipedia, creating an account is not a big deal. Freshacconci 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. "Vote" is misleading, as the info box at the top of the page indicates. This isn't a vote tally but a discussion. An administrator will weigh the arguments pro and con and decide which is more convincing. So the "vote stacking" approach actually works against a cause as forming an articulate argument is more persuasive. I've seen AfDs close with a "keep" even with a majority "delete" votes. It all has to do with the strength of arguments. One cornerstone of wikipedia is to assume good faith and I think most editors on wikipedia are interested in expanding the encyclopedia rather than deleting articles. However, not every article created can be saved for a variety of reasons including those failing WP:V and WP:NOTE. There are a number of "rules" and procedures in place to prevent abuse and self-promotion. Generally, if you are involved with an organization, writing about it is a problem per WP:COI and WP:NPOV. This isn't absolute of course, but is a guideline that mostly works. Freshacconci 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article indicates it is a fine organization working toward good purposes, but the same could be said of most local church congregations, and they are not notable in general. The article lacks references to show it has had much impact beyond its own membeership, and fails to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. It might do so in the future, and then th article could be recreated, when and if it has multiple instances substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering the organization is "community" involved, and cites functions and events that are CLEARLY community, how do you come to such a conclusion as to say it "shows little impact beyond its own membership"? Police Week is documentd by the local paper SNAP, see link in section titled Media. Police Week is a week for the Police force, 55 Division is a precinct in the Police department. AKA: COMMUNITY!!! Casa Loma is a heritage site, a REAL CASTLE run by a charitable group called the Kiwanis club, and Hightower volunteers at their Renaissance festival event. They are not paid actors. It's long, hot, tiring work.. unpaid work, for the betterment of the community and its participants get no kickbacks or favours in return! Unlike some other organizations with the same interests, we go out to local events regardless of the fact they are "mundane" in dress. Education is about giving to the community and not self-perpetuating in a closed tight society that only gives to the community if there is something in it for them. Anastasia the Innocent 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
* Comment Good evening everyone, as I read through these messages, I see a string of contradictions made over the last 24 hours or so and yet no one has answered my questions with a direct answer. Mandsford's name seems to disappear from the archive by way of Gremlins, and when accusations of vote stacking are directed across the table, suddenly majority votes are no longer the deciding factor. When told of the "guidelines" with regards to wiki pages, such as self promotion, you forget that the SCA pages have a very big section of wikipedia, edited by SCAdians, and SCAdian editors listed in the wiki directory. I have seen small medieval/viking groups disappear from the wikipedia for one reason or another, and though this particular page has been here for a year, suddenly it is under attack. One cannot talk about self-promotion if you are talking about a large group like the SCA written by it's subscribers and yet attack other groups. why, even people that play in Warhammer, edit their pages.

If a person working for the Department of Tourism in Paris France, writes an article about the Eiffel Tower, is that self-promoting? The same goes for the person living in Toronto, proud of his or her city and writes about the CN Tower, Casa Loma or Centre Island. People write about what they know! Landmarks, lifestyles, organizations. They go hand-in-hand.

What I see here is alot of rhetoric and contradiction and very little discussion with regards to questions. This is more like a dirvish dance floor than a round table discussion.

I appreciate positive, reasonable feedback from some of you others, and I thank you very much for some of the help you posted. It is my belief that we are all here for the same purpose, to make the wikipedia pages more reliable as an information source.

Have a nice evening everyone, and thankyou again, Anastasia the Innocent 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I mention above, "voting" is a misleading term as wikipedia policy clearly states that AFD discussions are not a vote. I was merely attempting to point out that any attempts at "vote stacking" (i.e. "voting" more than once, asking your friends to "vote" and so on) are ultimately futile, as it isn't a vote. In the end one person decides if an article stays or not, an administrator. As such, wikipedia really isn't a democracy. There are rules and procedures for electing administrators (and that is an election where votes are counted) who then have the authority to make these sorts of decisions. There is also an appeals process, deletion reviews. A deleted article can also be rewritten and reposted (if improved). There is no contradiction, but perhaps merely poor attempts to explain the procedures. Wikipedia has a learning curve and it takes a while to understand the various rules. This is both good an bad in the end, I suppose, and I would have no idea how to change it. In the end, wikipedia is a private website which allows complete strangers to change the content, which is an interesting concept if you think about it. We all tend to gravitate towards what we are interested in and know about. That's to be expected. And when we have an interest and level of knowledge in a topic we tend to become territorial about the content. But in the end we are all amateurs here, working on a hobby. Can someone working at the Eiffel Tower write about it on wikipedia? Of course, but the notability of the Eiffel Tower is beyond dispute. It's a bit more complicated when it's a small organization. This does not mean that the organization in question has no value or does not contribute to its community, but some editors feel it is not notable at this point. However, I don't feel that there is an agenda at work here, and I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel I have a bias here. On the contrary, I'm actually quite neutral on this topic and I've based my assessment on the evidence at hand. Thanks for listening. Freshacconci 01:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Freshacconci, thankyou for your replies. They have been helpful. You said that you are neutral, however you voted to "delete" yesterday, therefore that is not considered neutral unless you change your vote to reflect that. Regardless, you are the only person here that is making any sense and without typos too!:) I hope you are enjoying your summer and you have my sincerest apologies that these discussions are taking you away from some of that peace and relaxation. Have a nice evening and thankyou again. Anastasia the Innocent 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete Lacks adequate sources to denote notability. There is no way to tell source 1 is even creditable since it is so badly formated. (Exactly what kind of source is it and was it even published and in what journal or newspaper?) And even if it is deemed a reliable published source, it alone does not confer notability. Other reliable third-party sources are needed. That the group participates in a festival at a historic location also does not confer notability on the group either. The last three all appear to be self-referencing or primary sources which cannot confer notability under any circumstances. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I see that at aproximately 11 of the 15 references on the SCA page are self written documents, some by long time members (and one a friend of mine). Are they up for deletion as well? I see they're flagged, but not up for deletion. The same goes for the Warhammer page. They were tagged in July to improve and verify their sources. The Hightower page wasn't given the opportunity of a tag to improve its sources, it was suddenly flagged for deletion. I think that because of the lack of consistancy with "rules/guidelines" going on between articles, I will probably appeal to the higher ups. In my humble opinion, it's making Wikipedia look bias and unprofessional. This is probably why some people have their own programs to set up their own Wiki-mirror pages. It's understandable. Sadly, if some editors want to go around deleting Wiki-articles and concluding that some organizations (as legitimate as there) are not valid, then this lovely website will no longer have any articles. Encyclopedias need articles. they are supposed to get BIGGER not smaller! I have an old Encyclopedia Britanica that dates way back that was only in two large volumes, now look how many they have. I have great respect for this website and it's purpose here on the web, and there should consistency throughout. Careful measures should be in place and followed. but all this invalidates Wikipedia itself. Anastasia the Innocent 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS But I did quickly run through the SCA article's sources and seen enough third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of the organization. I also know that there has been plenty of press coverage that are not listed as sources to know that SCA is notable. I can't say the same for KoH. As for overturning the results of a deletion discussion, there is deletion review. But you have to explain why the closing did not reflect consensus, there were serious procedural errors, or present new sources that would have changed the outcome of the discussion if the deletion was based on a lack of notability. But beyond that there is no "higher authority". --Farix (Talk) 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Alternative Solution I am unsure of how many days are left on this discussion, but it's been mentioned by one or two individuals to merge this article with the parent organization, LUTES. I am in full agreement, but the Hightower organization existed a year longer than LUTES. The Hightower page can still be edited for improvement, but if it's decided by admin to be merged, according to the criteria for WP:ORG WP:CORP, then it is going to take a very long time to edit. Editors have lives too! :) Discussion on this would appreciated. Thanks. Anastasia the Innocent 05:01, 7 August 2007 (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.