Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sphinx Head

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 was keep. Mangojuicetalk 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sphinx Head

Sphinx Head (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

As per WikiProject Universities Article Guidelines, university student unions and student organizations are not notable. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. A deletion of this article would lead to an uprising of this organization's members creating it again, I'm not saying we should let that intimidate us into keeping it, but we should take that into consideration.--Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Such a recreation can be speedied under the CSD G4 criterion, and, ultimately, salted. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It should not intimidate us at all. There are several student union/organization articles that have been AfDed(and deleted) and a few that are being AfDed as we speak. This article shows no special notability that separates itself from any standard/normal student organization, therefore it still shall be deleted. If the author wants to later merge the condensed content of this article into the university's main article, that should be fine, but not by itself. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 14:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The article may be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion of recreated material, but it has been substantially edited since recreation, so we have to have consensus before deleting it again. Nevertheless, I think it should be salted once deleted. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article and the Society about which it speaks are very much legitimate (and the sources are legitimate as well). Many other organizations of this kind have remained on Wikipedia (See List of collegiate secret societies) and I feel as if this group should be given the same respect and consideration. As a great deal of effort has obviously gone into this article's creation, I ask you to please reconsider your wanting to delete it. Thank you.- GoBigRed1865 (talk) 11:55, 09 December 2007 (UTC) — GoBigRed1865 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - While most student groups are certainly not notable, that doesn't mean that none can ever be notable. This one certainly seems to be notable, as do others in its category. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand why this user feels the need to create a new username every time this page is deleted (three deletes so far). User names include GoBigRed1865, BigRedLove, Cornellian1865 (and edits also made as 128.253.253.90)... I also have been unable to find the NY Times article in the third reference in the Times archives, or any reliable source that connects Andrew Dickson White to the society. Cornell2010 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is actually from May 10, 1891, not May 1, but it still has no mention of White. I have corrected the date and White reference. Cornell2010 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - I question the accuracy of information in this article. There is no evidence to suggest a connection to Andrew Dickson White as a founder or member (information since removed). Joe Holland is also listed as a member when it is easily verifiable that he was not (in fact, he was president of an organization that is mutually exclusive to this one).[1] In the past, the article creator has marked Drew Nieporent as a member, when he also most certainly was not (also a member of mutually exclusive organization).[2] The bulk of this article's information does not have sources, and it is rapidly turning into a page of speculation. There is no reliable source that traces the pumpkin prank to this organization, and the fact that a member founded Dragon Day does not connect it with the organization either (information since removed from article). I do not believe notability criteria are met either since the organization has no evidence of notable activities, projects, or history, only notable members. Cornell2010 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentIn reference to the multiple user names: why does it matter? In reference to the AD White question, it is speculated...therefore, there is no reliable source (this is an organization surrounded with secrecy...). But the NY Times article implies White's involvement as it claims the Society to be "of the nature of Skull and Bones" (of which White was a member). GoBigRed1865 talk 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the place for SPECULATION. If there are no reliable sources, then the statement must be removed from the article. will381796 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep pending verification: I agree with UtherSRG. Almost all student organizations are not notable, but this one seems to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG because of its multiple verifiable independent sources. It has historical significance that seems to be outside of the usual student organization cruft. If, as Cornell2010 suggests, the sources do not in fact reference the society then I agree with deleting the article. —Noetic Sage 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Page has been brought up for deletion for notability on three previous occasions, resulting in delete every time. Limited non-wiki-clone google hits. 2afterblue (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment - The page was brought up for deletion before because it did not have citations and/or it was not long enough. The page currently has credible citations from several independent sources and is of reasonable length. Also, Google searches on a group of this nature should not be used as evidence to erase this article. The purpose of this article is to create a credible source of information about the group. I request that the deletion tag be lifted off of this page. Thank you for your concerns, as they have helped to improve this page drastically. User:GoBigRed1865 (talk) 19:21, 09 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep [This page is the result of a great deal of work from a number of people and only uses credible sources (New York Times, Cornell Archives, Cornell Alumni Newsletter). There has yet to be any justifiable reason, from anyone advocating a deletion, of how this could constitute something that does not further the Wiki community. I acknowledge that there have been attempts in the past by others to make a page, but this is a legitimate attempt to make a real page. I believe that it should only be met with encouragement and support. I would also like to motion that the deletion tag be removed from the page. Thank you. Cornell1890 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — Cornell1890 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Keep considering the presence of independent sources (NYT) describing its notability. The fact that an article results from a "great deal of work" is not a reason to keep it. But this does appear to be the exception with regards to notable campus organizations. will381796 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual societies like this aren't notable--but student unions are. They shouldnt be lumped together this way in the justification. .Only the single NYT article is a third-party source. DGG (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (This is my official vote. Nomination didn't count as a vote apparently...lol) Reason: as per nominated. Those who have mentioned their reasons to justify notability have all failed (miserably). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you really want to keep the content, I suggest you shrink the article's main points and place it into the university's Student Life section. To keep things simple, I'd just go for the major points that can be verified with sources and skip the rest. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Hopefully the last one... Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please be objective on the issue at hand, the argument that this article should be deleted is based off of lack of individual notability as well as a direct conflict with WP:UNI's article guidelines. I suggest editors who want to keep this article not battle out on policy viewpoints, as it really doesn't help this article's AfD progress. Instead, if you really want to see this article survive, add more substantial references that would in fact substantiate this article's individual notability instead. Constructive debate is always encouraged, but this type of stalemate "well...too bad" arguments are really getting sad. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - the nomination is apparently based on the notability guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities (guidelines which I do not see spelled out anywhere on the project page, by the way)... however, those guidlines seem to conflict with those of several other Wikiprojects. For example, the article would certainly fall under the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies (which includes collegiate fraternities and societies in its scope). Since there is conflict between project level notability guidelines, we can not delete based on any single one of them... we have to revert back to the basic Wikipedia-wide notion of notability, as if the seperate project guidelines did not exist. This article clearly establishes the notability of its subject. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep per UtherSRG & Noeticsage. There is a lot of cleanup work to be done, but sources demonstrate this article should exist. As for the content in it.... cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- Article needs some fleshing out in some places, and maybe some cutting of some less-well-verified content, but I think it is substantially notable. I'm sure logicians will pull their hair out at my reasoning, but there are plenty of pages out there about very similar groups. --Cjs56 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not a fan of university secret society articles, which can be cruft but this is a particularly poor choice. The WikiProject Universities Article Guidelines state "Exceptions include organizations which ... Have been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". The New York times is cited in the article a couple of times and a search through the New York Times archives shows multiple references to stories about either the society, particularly announcing its membership elections. These have been mentioned in the article. JASpencer (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While most societies are non-notable, this is an exception. There are many sources to verify the text. The high number of notable members convinces me that the society is notable. Royalbroil 13:39, 16 December 2007 (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.