Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Amaranthine Order

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. Neither of the keep !votes address the concerns about notability raised by the oppostion. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Amaranthine Order

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:Org. No mention of this org by reliable sources independent of the subject. Completely sourced to SPS. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book used a source is unknown to Worldcat. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: My above bolded "Comment" was changed to "Keep" by User:Orthorhombic,[1] so it would be a good idea to check the page history for any other such behaviour before evaluating consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I wrote most of this article myself, and it sounds like I am going to have to get this research published in a scholarly journal and then reference myself. I own two malin-grey publications on the Order, but will clearly have to work to track down others. The Order probably had about a thousand members at its peak (about the same as a secondary school, which I suppose would be entitled to a Wikipedia article regardless of its notability), and is certainly not as well-known as the Order of the Eastern Star, from which I believe it was a spin-off. If the community wants to delete it then the community will have its way no doubt, and I guess I will be able to recycle the research and get thanks and payment for the work to boot! :) (Needless to say, it is in the nature of secret societies that they will attempt to keep their very existence and their activities secret.) Orthorhombic, 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question... Orthorhombic, are you saying that most of this article is based on your own research into the organization? If this is indeed the case then, yes, you should take the article and publish it elsewhere... and we should add WP:NOR to the list of problems. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)*[reply]

Blueboar: All of Wikipedia is either plagiarism or original research. Which would you prefer in the case of this article? Orthorhombic, 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and as such it summarizes what is said in secondary sources. You should probably check out Wikiversity... it is a sister project that welcomes original research. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organisation seems notable to me IJA (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to expand?... what makes it seem notable to you? More importantly can we establish that notability through reference to reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as is required by our notability guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:CLUB Codf1977 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.