Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina (2nd nomination)

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. --Coredesat 07:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordo Stella Matutina

Ordo Stella Matutina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Completing malformed nom by User:Kephera975 (nomination already existed; moved to proper "2nd nomination"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. See [1] and [2], and check user's contribs for recent multiple nominations of articles. IPSOS (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete unfortunately his comments in the diffs you gave are right, this is a non-noteable organisation and article seems self-promotional advert.Merkinsmum 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete pure self promotion, there are no 3rd party (or even 2nd party) references to show notability. --Kim D. Petersen 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• strong delete. WP:SPAM, no WP:RS or signs of WP:N. THF 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete - no independent sources. I'm willing to change my vote if this article gets properly sourced before the AfD closes. See Order of Nine Angles for how to properly source an article on a tiny little-known esoteric group (Satanist, in this case). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

comment The thing is, I think there was some press attention to the ONA when they were around, due to there being a 'satanic panic' on at the time, and a lot of mentions of them since by various groups. This Stella group I think haven't been mentioned hardly anywhere, let alone in any mainstream publications.Merkinsmum 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and therefore, as you point out above, they are not notable. Wikipedia is not for something made up in a book published by Llewellyn one day. As for ONA though, it seems they got most of their independent coverage due to their purported association with neo-Nazism. Maybe these guys should look into that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this and use as a redirect to Stella Matutina. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Redirecting to Stella Matutina is a good idea. IPSOS (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to integrate the numerous contemporary orders into one central and more comprehensive article, per AfDs here, here, here and here. Coldmachine^Talk 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge with Golden Dawn article. Not notable. No third-party references. Also, the article states that it operates under the "under the legal umbrella of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc." But that is questionable because the corporation grants certification to every Golden Dawn order, in other words, they allow others to use the trademark freely, but they are not an "umbrella" under which the other groups operate. There is no implied endorsement.

Someone suggested merging with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. That has also been suggested on some of the other AfDs of Golden-Dawn related orders. I apologize for duplicating some of this comment, but since the AfD's were posted on an assembly line, I don't see how that can be avoided. Some of the articles should be kept, and some should be deleted - each have different notability and references and need to be treated separately. Merging would cause ongoing problems. Most claim connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but that does not make it true. There is no reference to support that they should be in the same article . If the articles are merged it will become more difficult to disambiguate and would create fertile ground for edit warring. All of that aside, this organization (Ordo Stella Matutina) is not notable and the article should be deleted. Regarding redirecting it to Stella Matutina, I don't have enough knowledge on that to make a recommendation one way or the other. --Parsifal _Hello 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I appreciate that pov; I have little knowledge about the ins and outs of these organisations, or the politics which appear to exist between them. The logic was that since all of them have been inspired from and consider themselves "contemporary Golden Dawn orders" then it seems only sensible they should have brief stripped down details within the main Golden Dawn article. They are already mentioned there in any event so I'm unclear on what the basis of opposition is? Coldmachine^Talk 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment well, I would oppose a merge on WP:V grounds. Since these organizations are actually not the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, their self-published material cannot be used in that article. See the section on self-published material and the specific exception that it can only be used in an article about the author or publisher of the material. Basically, if the organization is not notable enough to support its own article, policy prevents it being merged to another article. IPSOS (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if it were redirected to 'stella matutina' a sentence would have to be added saying this org is not the SM, the same as the original order, but a newer org, revival based on it.Merkinsmum 09:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much what I'd been thinking too - maybe a subsection at the bottom saying "The name was revived in X by an organisation calling itself OSM, though there is no connection with the earlier body." Grutness...wha? 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Again I agree with Coldmachine. This is an original idea which should be at least noted on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page where people with these beliefs can be self-initiated and how.

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.