Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Eagle of Georgia

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 Keep. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Eagle of Georgia

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

Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Significant sourcing only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG going away, despite a blizzard of citations that don't actually discuss this "order" in more than a passing mention, if at all. I've nothing against self-proclaimed "nobles" of a non-existent "kingdom" declaring their right to award an honor defunct nearly a thousand years and getting fanboys running monarchist blogs to include capsule descriptions, but it's the moral equivalent of a WP:NFT violation.

This keeps getting recreated (and AfDed) every couple of years in various iterations, and at this point I think salting the name would be appropriate. Ravenswing 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- various discussions were hold when the article was posted. And it was kept as there is no fantasy on the Order having its own article. This is not about giving our own criteria on this order, as User talk:Ravenswing is doing, but about giving encyclopedic content to elements that were not included into Wikipedia and are of proven general interests. The article has shown various references, and Mr. Ravenswing keeps on his steps, trying to get it deleted. That's not the WP:NFT violation, but more precisely the personal opinion of User talk:Ravenswing. In fact, any edtor can see the references that give elements to keep the article in the multiple references and sources part, where books, newspapers, official Chivalric Organisations, and, of course as it couldn't be different, the main page of the House of Bagration, as it is logical for the Order which is awarded by them to be there, provide enough references to endorse to keep the aticle. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice try, but no. Indeed, there are book and newspaper articles cited in the article -- but they do not mention the subject in the "significant detail" that the GNG requires. The Serrano reference doesn't talk about the Order, but about the legend that Christ's tunic was taken to Georgia. The Telegraph article doesn't mention the Order at all, but about the prospects of the monarchy being restored. The second Telegraph article doesn't mention the Order at all, but instead is about the death of the last Romanov to be born in Russia. The Times of London article doesn't mention the Order at all, but instead talks about recognition of the current head of the house. The Burkes Peerage citation doesn't mention the Order at all, but instead concerns the precise title the Bagrations claim.
And so on and so forth. A careful look at this article shows that it's a rambling WP:COATRACK violation, full of facts about two holders who got married and how that purportedly bolstered interest in a constitutional monarchy, about a holder who is allegedly the most trusted man in Georgia, that Prince Jorge was invited to the most recent Spanish coronation, that the Patriarch of Georgia had called for the restoration of the monarchy. These do not pertain to the subject of this article, which is neither the Bagrations, the nation of Georgia, the ambitions of die-hard monarchists, or the blizzard of pretenders name-dropped through this article. That is indeed my personal opinion, but unlike Mr. Romanov's personal opinion, it's founded in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Ravenswing 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The articles you mention are intended to show the notability of the, after your words Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia.. The Royal House is thus, notable enough in Georgia and in the media to have enough fount of honour to keep the article. On the other hand, other and newer sources provide enough evidence to keep the article on wikipedia.

At first, the newly published Armorial of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, newely added as a source to the article, where the Histry of the Order and the biographies of the current knights and ladies are carefully described. Link to the Editor: http://www.romeditors.com/producto/armorial-de-la-orden-del-aguila-de-georgia-y-la-tunica-inconsutil-de-nuestro-senor-jesucristo/. This book has its ISBN number and has been published by an independent Editor (Romeditors).

On the other hand, this book (http://www.librosdeheraldica.com/images/historia%20de%20la%20orden%20del%20aguila.jpg), which I own, published by the Spanish Heraldic Society, where the History of the Order is described by Fernando Agudo and José Maria Montells, two reputated authors on herladry and Orders in Spain, shows more evidence of the notablity of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, what encourages it to be on wikipedia.

Finally, as you quoted some newspapers, I give you again an exlicit article from one of the most read newspapers in Spain, La Razón, where an event of the Order in Valencia is described, quoting the Order as an honourfull decoration (honroso galardón) and as the highest decoration of the Royal House (máxima condecoración de la casa real.). Here you can see the link: http://www.larazon.es/local/comunidad-valenciana/la-casa-real-de-georgia-entrega-sus-condecorac-BH2988047#.Ttt1KwXthLljf7h. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really know how serious this order is, so I'm neutral, but I listed this afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Deletion notices Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional order issued by a non-royal house. Mukhranian nobles never had such order. Jaqeli 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve: It is obvious that the Order of the Eagle exists and whether it is "legitimate" or not is a matter of opinion much like the status of the Order of St. Lazarus (which I personally think is not a valid order). Wikipedia is not a publisher of the truth but of information that can be verified. We know that the House of Mukhrani exists and based on their claim to a throne (regardless of whether one supports the claim or not) they have asserted that the Head of the House is a fount of honour and can legitimately confer honors. The particular one is listed by the ICOC as an "institution of chivalric character"[1], just after the Order of Saint Michael of the Wing. It is also listed on page 1847, Part 7 - Section 3 "Orders founded by royal claimants in exile" of the work World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Guy Stair Sainty. Is it equivalent to the Order of the Garter? No, of course not. However, it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia since it is usually the first place one looks at to find information on a subject. Perhaps a better solution would be to edit the article to provide criticism of the Order and offer an opposing view on the question of validity. --Kimon^talk 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve: If the ultimate order critic Guy Stair Sainty says that it is valid - then it is valid. Sainty would not hesitate to discredit any order he found lacking. Saint Vlad (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve:This article currently acknowledges honestly that the Order has been recognised in varying degrees by different bodies according to different criteria which seems to be fair and open. Consequently, it seems that it is unfair and lacks transparency for some unknown personality within wiki to decide according to his/her own criteria that the article should be deleted. The fact is that the Order exists either as an association, private honour or full Order of Knighthood - and as it does exist there should be an article on it as otherwise we would be pretending that it does not exists. Ollamhnua (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (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.