Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brute Force Committee

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. – Avi 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brute Force Committee

This article isn't verified, and is pretty much vanity. It isn't even remotely notable. Delete Ardenn 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering if the information can be verified. -- Whpq 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it's only notable to members of this club. Also, as the nominator says, it isn't verified and is vanity. (And it's not a very "secret" society if they have a wikipedia page about themselves). Allisonmontgomery69 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This organization is described in print in the U of T student handbook and in at least one of the U of T student newspapers, so ample verification material exists. There's probably administrative paperwork about them kicking around somewhere also (there was a crackdown on the group in the late 1980s/early 1990s, which would have left a paper trail). The difficulty (for the Wikipedia article) is that this paper trail is literally on paper, and so not web-accessible. For relevance/notability, per description on Talk:Brute Force Committee, this group is notable to everyone in Engineering at U of T (kind of hard to miss the cannon being fired on random days, or miss the group's participation in orientation), and their activities (though likely not detailed background) are known to other groups both on- and off-campus. Second choice: Merge/redirect to University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering. --Christopher Thomas 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While information exists on BFC, there's not much there other than "it exists" and "it pranks other schools" (maybe even not that much). It's not even that the paper trail is "on paper" - you'd probably need some sort of privileged access to view it as well, since it has to do with University policies. Anyways, it falls under student organizations and I'm not sure it's notable with that criteria anymore. --ColourBurst 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've checked WP:ORG, and it looks like most or all of the items mentioned would be acceptable as _sources_. Establishment of notability would require a publication that was neither affiliated with the BFC nor a student newspaper to mention the BfC, which is a more difficult test (though I'm pretty sure they'd show up in newspaper archives from the timespan around the crackdown, I'd certainly have a hard time citing one without spending a very large amount of time in a library). That having been said, neither WP:ORG nor WP:N is actually a policy (though WP:ORG may eventually become one in the future). --Christopher Thomas 06:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe this group is notable, however the article is unverifiable. Resolute 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm personally doing research on Engineering Student traditions at Queen's University (writing a book infact). From my own personal experience with University of Toronto, I can state that much of what is in the article is true, if not lacking a bit. I have attempted to add what history I know of to the article. --ChristopherBorcsok 22 Jul 2006.
  • WP:NOR. Ardenn 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. Has existed at least since the early 1980s. Verifiability questionable, but if it were verifiable would it still be a secret society? --Atrian 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable college club. --Cheesehead 1980 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk

• Delete. Problems with verifiability and original research. Ifnord 16:32, 29 July 2006 (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.