Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Matutina

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 Keep, and nominator also withdrew the AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Matutina[edit]

duplicate article: the history of Stella Matutina is already included in the article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 999 (Talk) 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is improving so changing my vote to keep. -999 (Talk) 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable, and is being worked on presently. Also, none of the material in this article is on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article, and the material pertaining to this article on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn does not have citations. Zos 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article was to go through a process of mediation, on the meditation main page. The material from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn should not be there, since the Stella Matutina article is a subpage and is not a continuation from the main order but an offshoot after a feud with the members. Zos 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: However, the user above withdrew from the meditation rather than wait for a consensus on the above. -999 (Talk) 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: - A careful review of the talk pages, clearly shows an attempt at ownership and verbal abuse, reported on WP:ANI. The article is notable, and being addd to. Zos 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been less than a day and a half. Deletion efforts are premature - give the article some time to grow. Ehheh 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the material is also in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and there is no evidence to support a consensus to separate it from that article. ---Baba Louis 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after looking into this further, I suggest that both this and Ordo Stella Matutina be kept. ---Baba Louis 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to material in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. --Coredesat talk 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course its redundant to the material in the main article! It shouldnt be there, but on its own page. Zos 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~if notable, but I'm not convinced of that. —Hanuman Das 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~ and integrate any material from Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which is specific to the subject of this article. —Hanuman Das 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough information for a separate article. The SM were paricularly big here in New Zealand (probably the country's biggest esoteric order), and were very active in the early 20th century. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - I've added a bit more info. Grutness...wha?
Keep, looks like it is developing. Delete and redirect to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Ekajati 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ekajati 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs to be expanded greatly. All it has is the history, and we need to know more about what it actually is....... KV(Talk) 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article looks better now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:24, 1 July 2006 (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.