Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilicus Society
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 temporarily hold off on deletion Adam Cuerden talk 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vilicus Society
Another "secret society" of which nothing can be verified. [Check Google hits] Not one Google hit for the name. Even the article itself states that the information is speculative and based on rumours and legends (i.e. some people kinda think it might exist). Contested prod(s). Delete due to lack of evidence. ... discospinster talk 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I understand your issue with the entry, especially in light of the fact that Google shows no hits. However, you have to understand a little more about the history of the society. The society was a legend among the students until this week. It finally manifested itself to the student body in the form of a note to the student body president. It explained in the note that the society had been dormant since the First World War. Do you really expect a society that has been dormant for almost 100 years to suddenly appear on the web two days later? The only sources which make reference to the society are those found in the library which I have listed. I think it's slightly ignorant to blackball an article simply because you can't find reference to it online. Theburgh 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment [edit conflict]. No, I don't expect a dormant society to be a presence on the Internet after a week out of the closet, but I do expect there to be some reference to it, somewhere, even in the context of being a rumour, if members included individuals such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Lord Palmerston. ... discospinster talk 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well what do you suggest I do? I'm not making this up, if that's what you're implying. It is an established legend (at the very least), here, in Edinburgh. And I must say, I find it slightly offensive that someone, who I doubt very much is from the area, is correcting me on this. That said, I understand the lack of evidence. How should I go about proving the existence of a secret society? Especially one which may have never existed. The point is that it is a piece of history, of legend, at the very least. So... we should just delete this article? Seems silly to me. Oh, and I use both of these two accounts, by the way.Laxer076 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is blatantly false. Mangrove22 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just because you think it is blatantly false doesn't mean you need to go blanking the page when the banner expressly states NOT TO BLANK THE PAGE. You know, just a thought. JohnCub 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I live in Edinburgh. I would like to verify some of the printed sources. I have not heard of this society at all, although I am aware of other groups at Edinburgh University such as the Diagnostics which lead a shady existence.--MacRusgail 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Please do. All three books may be found in the Special Collection at the University Library. I don't think this article should be deleted, however I don't have the time to continue to discuss this matter. I find it hard to believe that I am the only person who has heard of this society, but I understand the complaints raised by others. Taking the high ground, I suggest the article is deleted. I will wait until information becomes available online (as it must, inevitably) and then repost the article. I hope this is a consensus to which everyone can agree. Theburgh 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 02:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non notable, even if sources can be found. Nardman1 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete even with sources. Heck, even the note might have been a prank by a couple of students. Veinor (talk to me) 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- possible Keep on the bases of sources 2 and 3, which meet the requirement. I dont think mention in a letter does. The article properly refers to it as a possible legend. But, Theburgh, have you actually read the section on the society in your sources--can you give us some quotes? DGG 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Organizations which exist at a single university are generally non-notable. This particular organization does not have enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article under WP:ORG; note that apparently nobody had been speculating on the Internet about whether the society exists before the article was created. Such speculation, if it existed, might or might not rise to the level of reliable sources, but at least it would show public interest in the group. --Metropolitan90 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with no prejudice as to recreation of a well-sourced article (probably including direct quotes from the sources) about a legend of a secret society at Edinburgh, and what is notable about that society, or what is notable about the legend about the society. —Carolfrog 07:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- CommentIs there a certain centralized criteria for the inclusion of secret societies? If so, perhaps there should be. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment When will this be deleted? Mangrove22 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable. Even with sources confiming its existance in reality or legend, it is still a university society like Birdwatching at Yale. Nuttah68 11:54, 1 March 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.