Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rosicrucians

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 of the debate was Delete. I'm applying vote closer's discretion when I say that the delete comments here are more convincing than the keep comments, hence my closing result. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rosicrucians

This page should be deleted as it does not meet requirements of WP:WEB or WP:BIO, and it also does not meet notability requirements. The historical people listings are from one source and are stated as unverifiable on the page, and the rest of the members are not "famous or notable people who are also Rosicrucians" (which is the usual idea behind lists, such as List of Freemasons but "people who are only notable because they are or were Imperators of a Rosicrucian organization". This is easily verifiable by going to the main articles of the non-historical individuals listed on the page. The bulk of the info on those pages is usually only their Rosicrucian information. MSJapan 21:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per discussion on article talk page, the sub-list of notable historical people who are claimed to be Rosicrucians is by itself sufficiently notable to justify keeping the article. The list is poorly sourced, but not known to be incorrect. The other sub-lists (of people who were senior Rosicrucians) aren't sufficiently notable for an article outside the main Rosicrucian article, but should be left as-is with the justifyable historical notables list. I will withdraw this objection if the list of notable historical people who were Rosicrucians can be verifyably shown to be incorrect, but until that point, keep. Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: "I will withdraw this objection if the list of notable historical people who were Rosicrucians can be verifyably shown to be incorrect" The opposite is required under WP:Verifiability. The list must be shown to be verifiably correct. Unless that standard can be met (and I don't believe it can), Delete. Fan1967 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, please re-read. The list of people in the article are easily widely verifyably claimed to be Rosicrucians throughout many different sources. WP:Verifyability requires that you be able to show that such sources in the real world exist in order to presume facts are correct. Making that verification takes close to no time with any reference material on Rosicrucianism, and I have done so. My point is, that I don't know those sources to be accurate and I'm defending the article because of a rebuttable presumption that they are. Perhaps the article should be retitled List of people claimed to be Rosicrucians or some such, per cases where non-RC sources on their claimed membership aren't substantial. Or the list split further into well-known, claimed, and internal RC members. Georgewilliamherbert 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:V per Fan1967, and because such a list can never be truly comprrehensive. --Aaron 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- cannot be verified, especially in light of the checkered history of Rosicrucianism. Haikupoet 02:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at best this could be a list of suspected Rosicrucians. However, we all know that the only real Rosicrucians are the people you don't suspect... JoshuaZ 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced. Which is a shame, as it would be quite interesting if it was verifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete, articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Many different groups have called themselves Rosicrucians and many of those groups have claimed historical people as their own to gain prestige. JoshuaZ 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly true. And there are groups sometimes lumped in with Rosicrucians which would prefer not to be, such as some of the Masonic orders and the like. However, that's not the specific question, which is whether there are sources for the Rosicrucian (in this case, AMORC) claim that the specific list in the article represents prior members of historical notability. Extensive AMORC and related Rosicrucian writings document their claim to that effect, and probably the most central single source available is linked right off the top of the list. It's sourced referenced material, period, and the reference is right there. My position is, given that source reference, it's neutrality-enhancing to claim that the list is of people Rosicrucians claim were members but may not otherwise verifyably have been, and counterevidence to those names would argue that the source isn't to be trusted and therefore isn't a useful reference. I support a NPOV edit disclaimer per above, but don't support deletion unless we can show the list was defective (with references more credible than the Rosicrucians themselves). Georgewilliamherbert 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If one has so many different groups running around calling themselves Rosicrucian and claiming various people as their own, its a fundamental verifiability issue/definability issue. JoshuaZ 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe (based on the work of William Poundstone) that AMORC is not a reliable source to document such claims. If you can find an independent source to document your claims, fine, but I don't think a piece of what non-Rosicrucians would consider propaganda qualifies. Haikupoet 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
< crickets chirping > ... and the full source reference to this William Poundstone work which you claim shows AMORC is an unreliable source, thence matching my criterion for abandoning keep support, is... ? < /crickets chirping > Georgewilliamherbert 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The book Bigger Secrets. Essentially presents AMORC as a possible fraud. What it comes down to, though, is that AMORC, irrelevant of whether it is a fraud or not, is not an objective source. Not necessarily wrong per se, but what it says has to be verified. Haikupoet 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. That book is a counterargument, but it's not unbiased or fully reference grade reliable either. It is not convincing disproof. Is there another source? Georgewilliamherbert 07:18, 1 March 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.