Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha (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. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha[edit]

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

This page has been subjected to POV editing for years and no neutral, peer reviewed, broad accepted sources can be found. It doesn't seem that it can be improved. Also, the main contributors to the article don't appear to be against deletion. Kimon^talk 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no way to make this article balanced and accurate with so little information. Also, I recommend that users review the talk page of the article before voting. FnH (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Yopie (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Arys (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The very first source - "Self-Styled Orders of Chivalry" - says it all. As far as I'm concerned, articles on almost all of these gimcrack "nobles" and "orders" cobbled together by pretenders and other people claiming descent from abolished noble lines are WP:NFT violations. They are almost always self-sourced, "significant coverage" doesn't exist, and the only difference between them and the denizens of Otakon or Comicon is that the cosplayers tend not to really believe they are what their personas claim to be. Fails WP:V, the GNG and any measure of WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not for wannabe "knights" to score some egoboo. Ravenswing 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Ravenswing.--Yopie (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The history is said to result from "family tradition": this is not a reliable source. I do not doubt the claims about medieval knights, but there is nothing substantial to link them with the order invented by an Italian noble in 1851. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2011 (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.