Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chameleon Club

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Club[edit]

Suspected hoax. No reliable sources. If the first reference is meant to be a book, I can find no trace of it. The second reference is about secret societies in general, and the third is about Cambridge University student societies in general; neither mentions this "Chameleon Club". Two Cambridge graduates I consulted had never heard of it: that may be just because it's so secret, but in that case it is not notable. The author's only other contribution is an attempt, also supported by an irrelevant reference, to insert a mention of this into the article on Harvard's Porcellian Club. Delete as probable hoax, in any case non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable hoax. Neither of the two linked references even mention this group. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Appears to be a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Hoaxes where the facts need to be determined are ineligible for speedy deletion, and always have been. As a whole, people can be too quick to judge hoaxy-sounding things for them to reliably be treated via speedy paths. I've removed the tag therefore. Splash - tk 16:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. I don't see why it's not speediable, but there's nothing here that seems to assert notability, nor any reliable sources to even verify the content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find it on Google, so combined with nom's reasons suggests it either doesn't exist or is non-notable. Agree that it shouldn't be speedied, to allow reasonable fact-checking. Paulbrock (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. No sources can be found. Enigma ^message 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.