Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfs Blood

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 delete. --Coredesat 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfs Blood

Wolfs Blood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Organization is a 'secret society' at UCSB. As such, WP:V is a problem (to say nothing of the org being non-notable). Apparently, the references listed don't discuss the society (as mentioned on the article's talk page). Bfigura (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing notable about frat boys acting goofy. MarkBul 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no Google hits for this "secret" society. Corvus cornix 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything about it either. If the society exists, then it is evidently so successful at being secretive that it is completely non-notable. Jakew 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wolf's blood? More like horse poop. Bollocks. Realkyhick 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I go to UCSB and the group does exist - I rejected their tapp in 2004. They also take out an ad in the school paper and publish their members name in the school paper at graduation. I don't know how notable the group is or if the article is worthy for Wikipedia but they do have members at ucsb. 23:23 4 September 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
  • Delete Even if the org exist, it is non-notable. This article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The organization is no less notable then the Order of Gimghoulor or the Order of the Golden Bear. The group is the first collegiate secret society in California and is part of the culture of 22,000 UCSB students. I believe the group is notable. 8:32, 5 September 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
    • If you believe in its notability, why did you say delete? However, it's not the notability that's in question, it's the existence. verifiability is one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia, and if we can't find that this supposed secret society exists, we can't have an article on it. Corvus cornix 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree verifiability is difficult and perhaps it should be deleted for that reason yet the organization is notable and does exist, otherwise who is publishing the roster every year in the daily nexus. 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
  • Delete there does not appear to be enough info available from which to write an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Does the organization exist - yes. Is it notable - yes (at least to a portion of the population, including 100,000 UC students). Is information concerning the group verifiable - a large portion is NOT verifiable. Perhaps it would be more judicious rather then deleting the article in totality to explicitly describe within the article the inherent conspiratorial nature of all secret collegiate organizations. Conspiratorial or clandestine related articles are not normally deleted but are recategorized or bare some explicit notation within Wikipedia 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.87 (talk)
    • Please provide evidence that "[c]onspiratorial or clandestine related articles are not normally deleted but are recategorized or bare some explicit notation within Wikipedia". Point to one example. And then explain how that jibes with the verifiability policy. Corvus cornix 18:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The most obvious and relevant example can be found on the article Order of the Golden Bear. The Golden Bear article and Wolfs Blood article conforms to the verifiability policy: “Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
   * it is relevant to their notability; (the context of secret collegiate organizations has to be established)
   * it is not contentious; (the Orders existence is not contentious, at least not to 20,000 UCSB students)
   * it is not unduly self-serving; (It is a secret society with no members names published on Wikipedia, or on any other online sources – implying that members are not seeking notoriety or any self-serving goal.)
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (All claims are directly related to the subject within the article)
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

The Wolfs Blood article is no less contentious, verifiable, or notable then the Order of the Golden Bear article – as such I suggest that it should not be deleted in totality but bare some notation within the article explaining the inherent secret nature of collegiate secret societies. Subsequently, it may be prudent to establish specific guidelines for fraternal organizations and secret societies, as there are hundreds of articles concerning such topics within Wikipedia. --68.6.103.87 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Tye Reed

I put the request for sources on the Order of the Golden Bear article, and will wait for a period of time before nominating it for deletion if the sources are not given. That's a civil way of doing things, as was done with the Wolfs Blood article. There are no reliable sources, it gets deleted. Pure and simple. Find some sources and quit trying to lawyer here on the AfD, and things will be fine. If you can't find reliable sources, the article will get deleted. There is no choice in the matter. Corvus cornix 20:16, 5 September 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.