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. There is a very clear consensus to delete, by reference to the organisation's lack of significant enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ORG). Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians

[edit]
Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, organization does not appear to be notable. There is only one citation, and it to the organization's website. There are no third-party sources. Editors with an apparent conflict of interest continue to add promotional links (links to promotional pages for books, tarots decks, etc. produced by the org) and material to the article. This seems to simply be an advert for a non-notable organization and its products. Yworo (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article because it is the leader of the organization who does not meet notability requirements for people:

Elias Rubenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry has been notable for at least 5 years. There are no promotional links, since it is a nonprofit organziation. The only reason for this deletion discussion is a conflict of interest by another Rosicrucian Organization (view the history on the BOTA Site) Yworo deleted there intersting information tody Mentor rc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I have nothing to do with any Rosicrucian organization. I was simply implementing Wikipedia standards on sourcing and external linking. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then you are probaly a hired Wikipedia(gun), we know how this works in certain Fraternal Organizations, see WikiLeaks as Reference Mentor rc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Paranoid much? I've been on Wikipedia for over a year and a half, and have little interest in this topic. I stumbled across the article when trying to clean up the article on Rosicrucianism, which had links to several non-notable organizations. I personally have no problem with this article being kept, if you can provide sufficient third-party sourcing to satisfy our notability requirements. The fact that this article has slipped through the cracks since 2006 doesn't make the organization notable. Yworo (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is any third-party sourcing in the BOTA article....why not delete that aswell since you where cleaning up there too Mentor rc (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes i doubt!!!! that you are an independent Wikipedia Editor Mentor rc (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why doubt when you can go look? It's got a single third-party ref, a book by David Allen Hulse. I added a "refimprove" tag and we'll see if the regular editors can improve the referencing. In any case, "other stuff exists" is a well-known but meaningless argument around here. Yworo (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that book doesn't even have an ISBN!!!! any reference of that book? MentorRC (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes please I want a regular editor here not some hired Wikipedia(Gun), you should definatly put the BOTA Website as deletable aswell to prove your indepenency MentorRC (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you need to hire somebody who knows how to search Amazon. It's there, and it has an ISBN. I've supplied it and the full publication data. Maybe you should concentrate on finding references for your article. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ohh my, you are really interested in that article, good boy!!! MentorRC (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It only took a few seconds at Google books to determine that BOTA is certainly notable, with mentions in at least 700 books. Of course, not all of them will be in-depth or reliable, but certainly the org is notable. Surprise me, show that AOR is notable rather than attacking your perceived competitor. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil registry Number: ZVR-Zahl: 502344652 at (http://zvr.bmi.gv.at/) of the Order would be a legal public 3rd party reference Mentor rc (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your contribution here within minutes since the existence of this deletion discussion would suggest that you are member of a secret scottish rite fraternal organization too and no indepentant 3rd party opinion source MentorRC (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
additional refernence can be found at the BOTA site: BOTA has a 'Masonic blue lodge system' MentorRC (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an American. I have never even been to Europe (I am sad to say). I came across this organization when I was doing some independent research on the way Christian Gnosticism has unraveled into contemporary forms in the modern world. I began my research with the teachings of Simon Magus, then to Saturninus and then all the way to the Cathars in the south of France. I was introduced to things like Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and the occult sciences. I wanted to know the intricacies and differences of each. I eventually came across the term "Rosicrucianism" (a term I had never heard before). I was delighted to find out that there was such a wide variety of organizations that offered teachings on the topic. Even though I understood that many of them may not be legitimate or authentic, I wanted to be the one to decide which one had true credibility. I wanted to learn about all off shoots of modern Rosicrucianism. I wanted to discover the differences and various minutiae in each of their teachings. And so I did. I wanted to learn about more than just the larger organizations like the AMORC. I wanted to learn about lesser known mystics whose credibility may have been carelessly tainted by being likened to Aleister Crowley. I wanted to go the extra mile to find what was less common. To delete this article is to stymie the efforts of any individual with the same intellectual aspirations as I had.

This is not a popularity contest. It is information. The fact that this organization exists at all is enough to leave it in the public record via Wikipedia. Within the context of "modern Rosicrucian organizations" is where the article maintains its relevance, and therefore, is what makes it notable. View the third party article in Pulsar Magazine in March 2009. The order exists, and Elias Rubenstein is the grandmaster. The A.O.R. is a topic worthy of discussion. As to the quality of content of the A.O.R., that is for the reader to decide.

Furthermore, Wikiepedia is not a social networking site. There are much more effective ways to market a product or gain a greater level of notoriety within the social consciousness (ahem - facebook).ContributeUS (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — ContributeUS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikia is not a reliable source. Therefore its claim of notability means nothing. The article has not "been notable" here for 5 years. It's simply been overlooked and should have been deleted shortly after its creation. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overlooked??? There is always a first check by an Administrator before an article goes online, and this article has quite an editing-history MentorRC (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be given another year for improvement before deletion, it is obviously a living and growing organization that publishes books and promotes free sacred-texts on its website for public reading and education. I am sure in a year you can find many third party reference even in Lexika. Deleting it now, will make it difficult to be published again. MentorRC (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. There is no "first check" by anyone, articles go online immediately upon creation. Whether the article is ever reviewed is simply hit and miss. I don't think the article should stay. The organization does not meet our notability requirements, which require that notable third-party sources such as books published by an established publisher, established magazines or newspapers, or major online sources have reported in-depth about the organization. That is, an organization is not notable until it has gotten some press. It is very rare that a small fraternal organization will become notable in less than 20 to 30 years, unless something bad happens like everyone drinking the kool-aid or engaging in terrorism. In that sense, it's a good thing that the org is not notable.
Also, if and when the organization does get enough press to meet our notability requirements, it will not be at all hard to write an new article which is well-sourced and fulfills our notability requirements. We have no prejudice against formerly deleted articles if the situation has actually changed. We only object to the reposting of essentially identical, insufficiently sourced articles. Yworo (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then - and I am not trying to be interrogative here - where does it say anything about "significant press" as being a requirement for relevance? What about its relevance? It has been documented by other established organizations that are, for lack of a better term, "competitors" of the A.O.R., that a split happened in BOTA Europe with Daniel Wagner in the 90's. The A.O.R. was the order he formed after that. WHY is that not relevant for the sake of investigation of this topic? If you wanted to learn about the issue of the split in BOTA Europe, how is it that the A.O.R. is not notable?
http://www.golden-dawn.com/se/displaycontent.aspx?pageid=330
This link also provided information about the split with BOTA before it appeared in the Wikipedia article, making it clear that the source of the information on this link did not come from the Wikipedia article itself. There has also been a third party reference added to the Wikipedia article (written in French) that also confirms the split. ContributeUS (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability requirement states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Note that the criteria are "significant coverage" - that means mere mentions aren't sufficient. "Reliable sources", among other things, means that the sources can't be self-published, they have to be published by a third-party not affiliated with the writer of the material. The Golden Dawn link that you provided is self-published, written by the organization that publishes the website: it can't be used for information about any organization but the publishing organization in an article about that organization (if other sources establish notability), and even then only for non-controversial, non-self-serving material. So, the Golden Dawn article can only be used for information about the Golden Dawn, it can't be used for information about BOTA. Yworo (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then why is it that the Golden Dawn website can be used for information only about the Golden Dawn, but the A.O.R. website can not be used for information about the A.O.R.? Isn't that setting a double standard? The Golden Dawn is an established organization with a considerable amount of expertise in the realm of philosophical organizations of this sort. Why wouldn't their acknowledgement of the A.O.R., in addition to their offering a breif commentary as to how the A.O.R. relates to their own order, be sufficient enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the A.O.R. does in fact exist as a credible, albeit small, order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContributeUS (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that it couldn't be? The A.O.R. website can be used for non-controversial information about the A.O.R. It cannot, however, be used to establish notability. The existence of the organization is not in question, only its notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Yworo (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then if the existence of the organization and it's history are deemed valid, then why is it's relevance in question? With regard to modern-day Rosicrucian organizations (specifically the split with BOTA), why wouldn't the Golden Dawn's acknowledgment of the A.O.R. constitute verifiable evidence? The A.O.R. has offered a link to an article from an esoteric magazine (which I believe translates to Pulsar Magazine) from March 2009. It has also listed another source (that is not apparently associated with either organization) that further confirms the split. Why are none of these references notable?
When I read the GNG, it seems to speak of "relevance" or "a level of uniqueness that constitutes further elaboration"? Is notability just about popularity? Because the GNG states that an article doesn't even have to be important to merit it's own article. (P.S. Thank you for your patience.)ContributeUS (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times, notability is about having reliable reports about the organization written and published by people unaffiliated with the organization. The reason why the Golden Dawn page isn't suitable is because it is self-published. Anybody can write anything on the Internet. If they had the very same article published in a book issued by an independent publisher, say Llewellyn or Weiser, then you could use the article as a source. The reason is that when something factual is published, the publisher's editors review the material and do some fact checking, and don't print what isn't verifiable. In this case, that particular Golden Dawn group is itself not notable. (It's article was deleted back in 2007. It now appears to be a redirect to the article about the older, notable, order whose name they appropriated.) Yworo (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It seems like this is similar to the process that a scientific paper undergoes before being published in a peer reviewed journal. It doesn't necessarily mean that the information presented is correct or that all agree with it, but just that it's worth hearing about. Correct? However, the difference is that in peer reviewed scientific papers, scientists are reviewing other scientists. I don't fully understand why an editor is more credible in the area of spiritual philosophy than is another, unassociated spiritual group with far more expertise in that field. However, that aside, you've said the AOR's existence isn't the issue and the specific variance in it's teachings from other orders isn't the issue. You've said neither of these were in question. But what is the issue is whether or not the order has been deemed worthy to report on, yes? If that's the case, I ask that you have a look at Mentor RC's most recent post below.ContributeUS (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annnnd so it appears you already have. My apologies Yworo. Thanks.ContributeUS (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, we know where the true continental roots of the Rosicrucian Order are (prior to the Golden Dawn) MentorRC (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yours seems to be the only new response that wasn't completely subjective. I can't speak to the "turf wars" mentality, as I am not the author (though this does seem a little extreme for Wikipedia). However, if you could, would please let me know why the sources listed in this discussion don't meet the GNG. And if possible use my discussion with Yworo for reference (he's been patiently responding to all of my questions. It'd be a shame to keep going around in circles and make no progress.) Thank you.ContributeUS (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I haven't much to add that Yworo didn't already say; I do reiterate that while pertinent information in an article can come from the subject's website, that cannot be used to support the subject's notability under the applicable criteria. That being said, WP:RS, WP:SOURCES and WP:GNG go into more detail as to the type of sources we seek: "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals." Should this organization be featured in any of the same, those articles haven't attracted the attention of G-News so far [1].  Ravenswing  21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Rubenstein was part of an austrian TV talkshow Barbara Karlich, he was interviewed by TV and his last public Talk on the subject of his latest book was recorded by TV aswell, cutting is in progress and it will be aired in Spring 2011. There was coverage in secondary resouces http://www.sein.de/archiv/2007/maerz-2007/die-rosenkreuzer.html, but he legally changed his name last year, so most of the articles can't be used with valid prove. MentorRC (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
page 18 at http://www.mystikum.at/downloads_ausgaben/Mystikum_Dezember_2008.pdf has an online article, others are print only MentorRC (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.sein.de/archiv/2009/november-2009/die-kabbalah-und-der-lebensbaum.html is another online article MentorRC (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you give me some time i could list probably 7-10 article in diffrent Esoterik Magazines, is scanned proof needed? MentorRC (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few articles, this should be sufficient coverage for notability, I will research some of the ISSN numbers of the listed magazines MentorRC (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to include the names of the authors of the articles in the citations. Also, you need to let us know which if any of the authors are members of the Order. If the articles are written by Order members, then they are not third-party reliable sources and don't help establish notability. Yworo (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you think I have a fulltime job here to make this a valid Wikipedia Article? How long will this discussion last until a judgment is delivered, it is now midnight in continental Europe MentorRC (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to panic, AfDs run for five days from nomination. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember at least two of them being interviews, but I will check back MentorRC (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hamid Mirzaie is legally not member of the order, Elias Rubenstein is MentorRC (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is a personal opinion of NO relevance MentorRC (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your opinion that is so strong in support of this article makes me think rather of WP:COI... Peridon (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of intererst was discussed above, thank you MentorRC (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning my COI, I am not author of this article, I am simply improving by investigating facts and sources, no personal discussion needed anymore MentorRC (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest does not refer to being the author of the article. It refers to the strong possibility of your being a member of the Order. Are you? Yworo (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of conflict is this? I am interested in making this a working article for Wikipedia, what is your interest? MentorRC (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but maybe it is the best that this article gets deleted, so that nobody can add unscourced information to it MentorRC (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest WP:COI is when someone is personally involved with a subject - possibly being the subject of an article, or working for the company that is the subject, or being an involved member of the subject organisation. In view of the interest and knowledge shown by this account, the vast majority of whose edits are in connection with this article - and the remainder on related subjects, I am slightly concerned. The article has been edited by a series of single purpose accounts (editing this and closely related articles) who seem to form a series from the original author. Having taken part in many AfD discussions (on the side of deletion, retention or just commenting neutrally), I have seen other cases at AfD where this happened in the history of an article. It is sometimes done to make it appear that there are a lot of people editing. I am not suggesting that there is multiple account abuse going on here - and am not sure whether serial account use would be regarded as abuse - as I have no practical evidence. Perhaps an admin could clarify for us. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article should proof notability, not google MentorRC (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What of the new content added to the Bibliography and References of the Wikipedia article? Why is that not enough to constitute notability? ContributeUS (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If those sources - and I note that not a single one is in English - indeed discuss this splinter group in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, then yes, it would. What sections of those books do so, please? What's the publication history, so we can gauge the books' own merit? Vanity and small-press publications make up a significant number of such claims, so we ought to check.  Ravenswing  19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is Wikipedia English, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any topics worthy of note in non-English speaking parts of the world shouldn't be made accessible to the non-English speaking (yes?). I don't have the books or publications myself. However, there does seem to be enough there to at least assume that there is more than a "trivial mention," even if these sources don't serve as the "main topic of the source material."
The only reason I felt compelled to ask is because, when questioned about BOTA, the general concensus seemed to be that a search on Google books was enough to establish notability. I was under the impression that the same assumption of good faith on the part of the editor would be given (in other words, we would all believe that they weren't lying about the material) and providing ISBN's and ISSN's, so that the reader could validate the source material should they choose to, would be enough to establish that the content was verifiable. ContributeUS (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we typically don't give much credence to a long list of sources not actually used to source the text. If these sources were used to cite article content in footnotes, then we'd have some idea of the content of the sources. As it is, there is no reason to believe these "sources" do anything more than make a passing mention of the subject. Articles about non-notable organizations are written all the time. Listing every article that merely mentions the subject is the usual reaction when the article in nominated for deletion. This is easy to determine when the sources are in English and readily available. When the sources are not, it's up to the editors providing the sources to actually make use of them to source material in the article. If these sources are really in-depth, then we'd expect a much longer, more detailed, and well-sourced article to result from them, not just the addition of a long list or books and articles. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite. It is the explicit responsibility of editors advocating to Keep an article to provide sources which satisfy the pertinent notability guidelines, and therefore to have done the research to ascertain that they do before presenting them to us. Yworo correctly states that a common occurrence at AfD is Keep proponents throwing up a blizzard of Google links and cites without ever reading through a one. WP:AGF only requires that we presume that editors are acting in good faith, not that we presume that editors are conforming to policy and guideline just because they think they are. Beyond that, I'm sure you can spot some of the flaws in the argument. When you say "there does seem to be enough there to at least assume that there is more than a "trivial mention,"" how do you know? If, as you say, you have read none of those books or articles, in point of fact, you have no idea at all whether the subject is mentioned in "significant detail" in them. And neither do we.  Ravenswing  20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. That is why I was confused when a Google Books search result seemed to be enough to confirm notability for BOTA. I had the same questions: "How do you know?" "Who is to say what the content is in these books or how reputable the publishers are?" (For the most part, the answer to those questions are still unclear) In any event, it does seem like many of the works recently posted in the bibliography were printed publications as opposed to web links. How do Wikipedia editors typically handle printed works to establish notability? Is the author to provide scanned documents for Wikepedia editor review (and, if so, wouldn't this potentially cross into the realm of copyright infringement)? I guess what I am asking is: at what point has the author done enough and supplied the reader with enough information that the burden of proof is no longer on them?
Whatever the case, I thank you for your responses. I understand many probably weren't "swayed" by my first post, and that there were many who probably rolled their eyes at my argument. But I promise you, providing you with that anecdote was not an effort to romance anyone with my "triumphs in arm-chair scholarship," but to simply show that, while this article could be dissected according to the "letter" of Wikipedia (as you can do with most anything, should you choose to be litigious enough), I do believe it's existence is valid in the "spirit" of what Wikipedia is intended to be. Meaning, I wanted to know more about a certain topic and was able to thanks to the existence of this article (as well as many similar - and equally notable - articles) in Wikipedia. That reason alone seems like it should be enough to include an article in the event that there is a grey area with regard to an issue like notability. And while each poster seems to be extremely well-versed in WP guidelines, I must reaffirm my original stance that the issue of notability with respect to this article is at best a grey area, especially when considering the standard by which other articles mentioned in this debate seemed to have been held to.ContributeUS (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know because I looked at several of them using Google preview, I recognized some of the authors and publishers as reliable, and I added a citation to the article using a source that had a titled section on BOTA. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: Keep this entry has proofed notability by articles and interviews. its not about language of users, but the content of the entry. It fullfills all the requirements for an international site on Wikipedia 129.27.143.117 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — 129.27.143.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Just as a procedural note, I've blocked this IP as evasion from MentorRC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:43, 16 December 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.
More