Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Cosmic Engineers

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. henrik•talk 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Cosmic Engineers

This is..uh..this is something. This is a non-notable guild I guess, tied to some new-age spiritualism. Some of the individual members might be notable, but the guild itself, or organization, or whatever it is exactly isn't notable. Before anyone points to all the "sources" in the article, none of the sources outside of a blog from a science fiction writer, actually talk about the subject. Mostly they're citing real events which occurred, but its the article that ties them to the group, not the sources themselves. This was deleted and restored on the promise of sources, but this is a bloody mess. There is nothing here to justify keeping this article. The only thing that can be provided that references them is obscure blogs. Their one criticism comes from a comment that that science fiction author made on his blog post, not even the post itself. This is how obscure and far reaching they are to try and find sources which actually mention the group by name. We'll get this out of the way to start with: Afd is not a vote if you want to see the article kept provide some reliable sources which demonstrate significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally non-notable (full disclosure: Charlie Stross is a friend of mine). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources that can be viewed online do not give non-trivial coverage of the article subject (apart from one, which I would not view as a WP:RS), and from the description of them neither do the others. Brilliantine (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources don't support the group. Looking at the members' bios, I smell a whole new crop of AFDs. I'll work a bit more on that tomorrow.Kww (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment starting with the COI author of the article and leader of the pack? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources that talk about the actual subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Emergent? Sometimes mighty oaks grow from small acorns, and this concept actually has some potential. Mensa started out the same way, as a group of intellectuals setting out to save the world. Give it six months and then re-nominate? Simesa (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just keep articles on a hope and a prayer that they gain notability. If they're notable now, please provide the sources. Otherwise if they ever gain sources in the future the article can be recreated. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We go on the sources that are available now, which are none.--Crossmr (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; that's the old WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL, "up-and-coming," "next-big-thing" argument. We do articles about subjects which are notable, not about those which might be notable someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Simesa. The O.C.E. is a very young organization, and as such it has not yet had the time to build notability from many sources other than those managed by its founders. Therefore we will not object to the proposed deletion of this article on the basis of its lack of sufficient notability. The article will be resubmitted at an appropriate time with a unimpeachable list of citations, and I hope it will be evaluated fairly and objectively by reviewers.--(Eschatoon)
Delete. I tend to agree with Crossmr, if the group becomes notable then the article can be put back up when they do. I'd vote delete for now and see how our futurist friends do. nigell k (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks nigell k for your unbiased and constructive criticism.--(Eschatoon)
While making a backup for offline editing after this article is deleted, I noticed a strange thing that perhaps one of the more experienced editors could explain to me. A reference was deleted, and replaced by a flag stating that a reference was needed. I am unable to understand the logic of this, please explain. The reference in question (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20071204/) is a very critical one. It is a blog I wrote last year about the original 1981 work of William Sims Bainbridge, clearly quoting the source and trying to cast some of the ideas outlined in the source in a more current terminology.--(Eschatoon)
Its a blog I wrote last year... please read WP:RS and WP:V regarding self-published sources. In this case it seemed the source just sourced the existence of text (not that a blog can do that, but regardless) it didn't source the claim being made in the actual article about the text.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Crossmr, but I still don't understand. The actual article, which contains the sentences quoted: "We need a new spaceflight social movement capable of giving a sense of transcendent purpose to dominant sectors of the society... The human condition is one of extreme absurdity unless fixed in a cosmic context to provide meaning... A species which does conquer the stars will have developed a culture including a cosmic religious faith well-adapted to continue expansion indefinitely... I have suggested that only a transcendent, impractical, radical religion can take us to the stars", and the references therein, is meant to provide explanations. And it is not a self-published source: the first line says quite clearly "Subsequently published in: Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982, pages 187-201".--(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think I see your point now. By "the claim being made in the actual article about the text" you mean "The foundation of the Order was inspired by a 1981 article of one of its founders, William Sims Bainbridge". Correct? This is, as it has been correctly pointed out, a fact whose source is not the reference quoted. But in this cases perhaps the reference should not have been deleted, but simply moved at the end of the paragraph, immediately after the excerpt quoted in my comment above.--(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
No because its still a blog so it can't be used as a reference in the first place, but yes it wasn't sourcing that claim even if it could have been used as a reference.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again: it is not a blog but a published paper: "published in: Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982, pages 187-201". I happen to have a copy, should I xerox it and mail it to you? When we submit the article again, we will use a reference to the published paper instead of a reference to a blog that references it.-(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
To reference the quote, you should reference the original copy. not a blog which carries a copy of it. Regardless though its immaterial for anything to do with this group. You can reference all kinds of facts which may be loosely related to this group (things they believe, etc) but unless you provide sources which are actually covering them, and sources which are actually ties them to those facts, citing this information is of little value to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the phrase "When we submit the article again, we will use" also conveys a discomforting feeling that this is an organizational drive to get the group into Wikipedia, in violation of our conflict of interest, notability and neutral point of view rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my mother language, but I believe "will" is used to convey an intention. I and others do, indeed, intend to resubmit the article at an appropriate moment with a list of citations and references in total compliance with Wikipedia formal rules. I believe any user has the right to submit articles, whose suitability for Wikipedia will then be evaluated by the community at large. This should, I believe, be evident. So, I am unable to see why you are emphasizing this point. To me, and please correct me if I am mistaken, this conveys a discomforting feeling that this is an organizational drive to keep similar groups out of Wikipedia, in violation of our conflict of interest, notability and neutral point of view rules. By all means, please feel free to delete this article if you can neutrally and objectively show that it does not yet meet the Wikipedia notability requirements (and I have already conceded this point). At the same time, please appreciate that I will not take orders from you regarding whether or not to resubmit it when it does meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. I or another Wikipedia user will resubmit this article if and when we think it is appropriate. Period.--Eschatoon (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a philosophy of preferring to have non-involved people create articles about subjects. It helps to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to avoid any inherent concern about NPOV, etc. There is also a feeling that if your organization is truly notable enough, e.g. its generating coverage in reliable sources, someone will read those and create an article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (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.