Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larkism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy delete per A7.

[edit] Larkism

Non-notable hoax club. 17 Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Genuine club (as stated exclusive) but has little publicity. Members of the club do not wish use the internet to provide information and therefore cannot be found on google. 82.21.222.116 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax (the whole Titanic necklace bit? Sorry, but give me a break), non-notable, probably violates WP:VAIN. HumbleGod 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse Me! i have Actually seen the "New Hall." It is in a place called Knightley Estate one Of Christopher Js Private Property
I was Invited there On a school re-union, And i saw a door marked New hall on my search For a toilet. Upon Looking inside i saw a huge banner saying "LEMC Meeting"
I did some research communticating with old school friends, i have even talked to a member inside the club and he has verified all the information asking me to write this article so the club gets a little more attention since the numbers of the clubs members has fallen, due to memberes migrating.
Obviously You would have to be linked to such an article as who would search for larkism? Therefore the club is still Remaining exclusive but attracting just that little more attention to keep it going.
Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if the article isn't entirely a hoax (and you have to admit some parts are unlikely, again see the bit on the Titanic necklace), it still fails to make a case for the subject's notability and still violates WP:VAIN. Your above statement itself verifies both of these things. HumbleGod 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the arguments for keeping the article to be notable and significant in proving a point and have therefore removed the deletion notice. 82.21.222.116 21:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment AfD blanked and AfD tag removed by the above user. Closing AfD's is an admin-only function - please don't do this again. Thanks. Tevildo 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that the part about the titanic necklace is not entirerly believable. but i have heard this from my friend inside the LEMC, i must tell You this is a rumour In th LEMC. Hence Why it has been put in the trivia area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs)
  • The titanic neclace shall be described as "rumoured". The rest of the article may not be seen as vain as it describes an unusual organisation and one which could be seen as interesting and notable. 82.21.222.116 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Then please establish its notability. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Omicronpersei - there are no other organizations in Hertfordshire, or possibly in the UK for that matter, where wealthiness is compulsary to join the club and the club is purely based on wealth. This organization is also discriminive to the less fortunate, therefore Larkism is very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.222.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This doesn't cut it either; any facts or rumors must have citable sources behind them. If something cannot be proven through an additional verifiable source (reputable website, published works, etc), then changing the wording makes no difference. As for notability, the article itself doesn't make the case that the organization is notable for any particular reason. And this is separate from WP:VAIN. HumbleGod 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The LEMC does not currently have a website, but is looking to in the near future. They have published some of their own works, however the book "the LEMC years" is no longer available as it was not selling well and therefore it was seen as economical to stop printing it. 82.21.222.116 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that sources cannot be found is not an excuse to include information without sourcing it. This violates Wikipedia guidelines, and any such information should be removed. And at any rate, the fact that no websites or books could allude to it except "official" ones says a lot about the organization's lack of notability. HumbleGod 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable club. -- Gogo Dodo 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • AS i have said before the LEMC wants to reamin somewhat exclusive, not advertising itself to much the LEMC council decided this was the best way to inform potential members of the club about the LEMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs)
So it's a secret club that the members don't want anyone to know about, and people don't seem to want to read about it. Why again does it deserve an encyclopedia article? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It is an article about a group of people/club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Meets CSD A7 as far as I'm concerned. Failing that, its a hoax. Kevin_b_er 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The LEMC is not using Wikipedia to advertise at all it is usuing purely as an information source for potential members. The LEMC does not advertitise. If it did it would somewhat destroys its reputation as AN EXCLUSIVE MEMBERS CLUB. All potiential Members are handpicked by Christopher J84.67.41.75 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I Have Spoken to my friend in the LEMC and he has told me that Chritopher has spoken in light of what has been said on this page. The LEMC will never use Wikipedia as an information source again, And any donations even considered being given to the wikipedia fund will be Deleted. The LEMC is a real Club, and You people Have Insulted All members Of the LEMC.

When The LEMC have set up their website It will be the primary source of information to potential members it will also encourage visitors to stop using wikipedia and stop donating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Nothing like threats to make you want to keep an article. NawlinWiki 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Lemc would like to apologise for its inopropriate behaviour, it told the information team to by all means possible to show wikipedia that the LEMC exists. The previous posts were not outes from the LEMC but infact made up by the Information Team. Many Apologies THE LEMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Apology accepted, although it's interesting that the apology came from the same anonymous user who made the threat. In any case, we can't just take your word that the organization exists. You must give verifiable sources (ones we can check ourselves), and they must show that the organization is notable (widely known by people other than its members). Even if the club exists and was not something you and your friends just made up, and even if it is really full of rich people, it won't get a listing unless its notability can be verified. NawlinWiki 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am on the information team for The Lemc so it is not that intersting that it came from the same anonymous user. The club is not Known widely by other people outside Of the LEMC as it is an exclusive members club. However the LEMC would be recognised by potential members. The LEMC is in the process of being made. Will this be a verifiable source of information? Obviously \the club do not want to give away to much information about the club as it would no longer then be exclusive. The LEMC have decided that the information on the Larkism page is just enough for potiential members to get an insight into the LEMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

    • What you don't seem to get is that Wikipedia is not your club's bulletin board or recruitment service. If you want to hide info about your club so that it's unverifiable, that's your choice -- but don't expect to have an encyclopedia article. If you want to control the amount of information you give out, make your own website. NawlinWiki 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The LEMC is in The Process Of building a website. it is using wikipedia to inform potential members, and anyone who might be interested in the subject about the LEMC. Is this not the purpose of an encyclopedia? The LEMC does not recruit Members all potential members are hand picked by christopher J, since wikipedia is such a widely recognised encyclopedia it made sense to put The LEMC on here. All essential information About the LEMC is sent out by Post.

what information would be required to make the information Verifiable. i will try to negoitiate with the LEMC council to see what information can be allowed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It would take more than a release of information by your organization to satisfy WP demands. Please refer to WP:V for more information. HumbleGod 22:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would a Quote from a potiential member that turned down the request be okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) 22:45, July 9, 2006 (UTC)
  • No, because "articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). PLEASE review WP:V for what types of sources would be acceptable. HumbleGod 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking all aspects into consideration this article should not be deleted.

  • DISCUSSION ENDED

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs)

  • Rrrright. A super-secret rich men't club, they've found a fictional necklace in the wreckage of the real Titanic, and they have their own names for the days of the week named after Rolex watches. Oh, come on. Delete, implausible, unverifiable, if it's not a hoax, then it's an advert. I was very tempted to speedy delete in this case. No, on second thoughts, Speedy delete it is. -- The Anome 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7. Non-notable. Let's get this over with. Tevildo 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per Tevildo. --Merovingian {T C @} 23:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the one who initially PRODed it. Hoax-ish and vanity. I would have deleted it myself but I think it is borderline A7 and letting the discussion here end would be best. However, I wouldn't be suprised if this closes early per WP:SNOW. Pepsidrinka 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Closing now, deleting as per consensus + WP:SNOW, also speedy deletion as per CSD A7. -- The Anome 23:24, 9 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.