Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Crown of Charlemagne

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. (copyvio) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Crown of Charlemagne

Delete Reads like some sort of advertisement. Group has little presense on web [1]. Thoughts? PhilipO 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC). Link to this article has been removed in other articles. [2]

Opposed to deletion I don't agree with the singular opinion above. This Order is well-known and has a website. There are at least 2000 members of the Order and approximately every 5 years a two volume set of hardcover books are produced settng out members' lineage. These are vital source books for genealogists world-wide.

Comment Can you please reference this fact? --PhilipO 13:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see that it is an advertisement. What it does do is explain how people become members from a genealogical perspective. No fees are mentioned etc. User:Christchurch User has less than 50 edits

Who on earth do you think you are, you pompous prat, Mr.PhilipO? It is difficult to believe that the proprietors of Wikipedia allow such arrogance. But for your information (why should any of us have to prove anything to you?) The books in question are on the shelves of the Society of Genealogists in London, and the Scottish Genealogy Society in Edinburgh. Christchurch

Comment Perhaps you could send us a digital picture as proof? ;-) My original point stands. --PhilipO 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete - copyvio of [3]. Odd isn't it that Tracey Crocker, Registrar General, uses her personal domain for email communication from this website? She also heads up [4] NB NOT Magna carta. If the article is kept, it should be moved to: Order of the Crown of Charlemagne in the United States of America which is the full title of the organisation and gives more of an idea of the organisation's lineage. Apart from reworking the copyvio, if kept, this article needs rework:

1. bold title
2. no categories
3. remove history of Charlemagne for which there is already an article and insert history of the organisation
4. fix typos, etc. etc.

Ian Cairns 21:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone cares to rewrite it as a Wikipedia article rather than a copy of the group's website. -- SCZenz 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No delete Difficult to believe the hoo-ha here. Almost beyond belief. Seems like a few people with just a few hang-ups. (Tracey Crocker, I am told, is a man). The blurb is just a standard explanation of an established organisation, which, while based in the USA has members world-wide. It does not give "more of an idea of the organisation's lineage". What, exactly, is the problem here? I mean, do you people simply have nothing to do? 26th October 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.95.171 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 October 2005.

• Well, gosh. We are doing something—trying to make an encyclopedia, which includes some things that Wikipedia is not. Are you for some reason under the impression that insulting us will help? -- SCZenz 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Err.. are you suggesting that not one single article in Wikipedia has been copied from another encyclopaedia or book or website? I note that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". That certainly seems to be the case as there are several dictatorial people on various pages whose remarks CANNOT be contradicted. I came across this debate by accident but it is illuminating when it relates to such an uncontentious page with very little on it other than general information about a particular Order. As it appears that a couple of thousand people are members, surely then it should be noted by Wikipedia? I have also noted that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but surely thats just what an encyclopaedia (say, 'Britannia') is. People go to an encyclopaedia because they want information, however brief, on something. Christchurch
  • Can you please cite a source for that level of membership? Were it true I would consider changing my vote. Also, please sign your views with ~~~~ in the future, rather than linking to Christchurch. -- SCZenz 09:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• My apologies. I am definitely nothing to do with the city in New Zealand! Its actually the name of my old college. I know a chap in Cambridgeshire who is a member of this Order. His Life membership number was over 2000. It is possible this figure may reflect the membership since day one rather than current levels. Its just seems to me that this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. It is an existing organisation which people belong to, just like so many others. Now, if I had no knowledge of it and someone mentioned it to me I would look firstly at Wikipedia.

Christchurch 17:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Please see Wikipedia:Reputable sources. -- SCZenz 17:47, 27 October 2005 (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.