Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.U.B.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

T.U.B.

[edit]

Non-notable "secret society". BTW, I had to look up "hebdomadal" - it means "weekly". Zoe 07:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable boys club present at one school. --Daveb 07:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too secret. What's with all these secret societies? Proto t c 10:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sssh!, someone's watching the Cat. at least this one references publications, albeit student ones. Alf 11:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A secret society that deserves to remain secret. --GraemeL (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have references, are at a major institution, and there is a precident for allowing "secret" societies entries on this site.Octagon 13:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Unsurprisingly, user's first edit. Sdedeo 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't see how that is a valid critique of my arguement. Lets be constructive, not petty. If articles entitled "buffy the vampire slayer and social issues" belong on wikipedia (arguable violation of wiki not being a forum for original ideas), then this certainly does. ok sorry, that was petty.Octagon 16:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi Octagon. Welcome to wikipedia. If you are wondering why users whose first edit is a contribution to a VfD are considered suspicious, please read WP:SOCK. Sdedeo 17:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks Sdedeo. If you are wondering why I'm trying to get you to give a valid reason for deleting this entry, please refer to the wiki guidelines on VfD. You see, this isn't a vote, so my alleged "sock-puppeting" and your de-facto sock-puppeting (reposting what another user has said without adding any insight of your own) don't matter at all; it's all what is brought to the table.Octagon 17:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi Octagon -- I draw your attention to the last two paragraphs of WP:SOCK. I've posted a message at your talk page with some suggestions on what to do if your article does not survive VfD. All the best, Sdedeo 17:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thanks Sdedeo. I draw your attention to the definition of the word "alleged." Basically, it means "described as but not proved," In other words, I did not admit to sock-puppeting, which would have been rediculous because I am quite a different person from whoever wrote this article. Give me a method, I will gladly prove it. My frustration is with your inability to cite where this entry is in violation of wiki's generally accepted guidelines, and your inisitence to vote against it because you consider it not "notable."Octagon 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important institution, has references, better article then most for secret societies. Henryshoots 15:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe. Dottore So 16:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep meets the criteria to keep as it is verifiable and factual. Trollderella 16:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-documented and certainly notable and pertinent for the students at the school. Absolutely information that should be in a public forum. Samdupont 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of yet non-notable secret club, existence dating back to 2000 at most. Sdedeo 16:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.GaelClichy Wikipedia should err on the side of expanding available knowledge, as opposed to restricting it for petty reasons.
  • The Phillipian newspaper exists, I'm just not sure about those individual articles. By any chance, does the gentleman with the sockpuppets have a copy he can scan so that we can see it? That would go a long way to proving his argument. Until I see some kind of reference I can verify, I vote delete, especially since "Sockpuppet limit has been reached and exceeded". --Scimitar parley 19:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Articles are not online, but I have scans for any who want to see them. Henryshoots 19:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable "secret society". Suspicious sock-puppet-like activity on the VFD. Optichan 19:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. ] I just want to deal briefly with accusations of "sockpuppetry" (I just looked that phrase up and realized what you all were talking about. I am not a creation of the author of this article, nor have a posted on wikipedia before. sorry. I happen to know the author of this entry in the real world (god forbid), and was directed to this vote by him ("yo, I just wrote this wiki-entry, and people are trying to delete it"). I realize that there is no way to proves this, but I don't really care, you can choose to beleive me if you like. I am not deeply invested in wikipedia, nor am I well versed in meta-wiki terminology, but that does'nt necessarily invalidate my argument. I was pretty surprised to find that there were self-appointed wiki-censors, or self-styled guardians of the gates of knowledge who presume to know what others should and should not be able to read about on wikipedia. That's absurd. I understand that there has to be a certain level of quality control, but I think that once offensiveness, bias and errors have been eliminated from an entry, there's pretty much no reason to delete it. And I do not see anyone here arguing that this entry is plagued by any of those three things. Additionally, I doubt that this entry in particular is more frivolous than any number on wikipedia ("sock puppet," for example). I know that I learned some from reading it...nothing earth-shattering, but it was interesting enough for me to read the whole thing. Also, if, as opposed to asking people to vote (which is legit) the author was using sockpuppets, why would this vote be close at all?.[[User:GaelClichy|GaelClichy]
    Comment: People asked to vote by the author are called meat puppets- they're real people, but they have the same effect as sockpuppets. The question is really about whether or not this particular entry can be independently verified (please, someone, anyone, put those scans on their user page and let us see them), and whether it is important enough to cover- because although we aren't a paer encyclopedia, our server space is finite.--Scimitar parley 19:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please see my user page for documents. Henryshoots 21:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable. —Charles O'Rourke 23:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Just a little too non-notable for me. Johntex 23:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Not verifiable. Also exceeds the "too many puppets" test. Wikibofh 23:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm reconsidering given that documentation was actually provided. Wikibofh 13:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to the user(s) supporting this page, being free of bias and errors are not the only qualifications an article must pass to be considered worthy of being on Wikipedia, it must also prove itself notable enough. I could write an article about the mailbox down my street and it would be verifiable, and free of bias/errors but it would be nowhere near worthy-enough to be on Wiki. This article is not notable enough, no one really knows about this except people who read The Phillipian which at most encompasses the Andover community. Secondly you criticize the VfD process for judging "what people should be allowed to see". Far from it, please feel free to host this information somewhere else on the internet and remember that anyone on Wikipedia (including yourself) is free to vote on VfD, however wiki also has certain standards to be met, notability being one. The reason we have people vote is because notability is highly subjective so the best way to determine what stays and what goes is the democratic process. And finally the reason you have been accused of sock puppetism is not because it was your first edit or because you supported the article but because of the manner in which you did both of those. I too made my de-lurking wiki "debut" the other day voting Keep on a VfD. I and my vote were accepted however because I made a case for why the article should stay. You on the other hand have really just argued that it is verifiable (not enough of a reason for the article to be kept) and have attacked not only other respected editors but the Wiki-process itself despite admitting you are new and have no real interest in Wikipedia. With that in mind please read our guidelines and join the community if youd like, but for now the article should be deleted. -ShadowStaller 02:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off, I want to apologize for not having read entirety of the wiikiipedia guidlines. I am a huge fan of wikipedia and well I really wished my first post/edit wouldn't have to be of this nature. So to those of you who are experienced here, please dont judge me by the number of posts/edits but instead by what I say.

Moving on, I have placed the cited articles for those of you who have requested them as proof on the web. For reasons of bandwith I think we can all understand why it is not the full page of the paper but instead only the section for the article. That being said, I believe The Phillipian header is in most, and I am sure that the print date is on each of the scans. If you would like to download them you may do so here: http://dime32.dizinc.com/~tub/resources/10-25-02-Phillipian-Article.pdf http://dime32.dizinc.com/~tub/resources/Dec-1-2000.PDF http://dime32.dizinc.com/~tub/resources/Nov-10-2000.PDF

I hope this helps the people who feel that this post is entirley nonsense. It is merley documenting a trend at the oldest secondary school newspaper in the United States. Not to mention it offers insight other than that of the TUB society, it adds to the schools history, explaining how there used to be societies at Phillips Academy, which where banned in 1950. The topic on secret societies has at Phillips Academy has also been thought to be interesting enough to merit their own chapter in "Youth from Every Quarter: A Bicentennial History of Phillips Academy, Andover" by Frederick S. Allis (Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0874511577/qid=1125030571/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-5077754-0876052?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 ) This all being said after reading everyones posts I am still confused as to what exactly constitutes a "notable" secret society. The dilema I am having is that since they are all secret none of us really know anything except for what they have led us to believe. For all we know, other secret societies that have been listed on wikipedia are just social clubs that like to call themselves secret societies. We really do not know anything else about them except for that they care to share with the pulblic eye. T.U.B. could be several decades old, or a what is left of a public society that went secret on the decision of Hedmaster John Kemper in 1950. Also, I have found this article to be more complete than some of the other societies pages that are on wikipedia. The point is we only know what they have let us find out.

I am an alumni from Phillips Academy and I can tell you that most students would be interested in the information on the T.U.B. society, hence the reason the highly awared newspaper chose to write about it. I don't see the harm in keeping it as it is merely collecting the information that students have come across over various years on this society. Whether you find it notable or not is up to you, but I believe that a society that supposedly exists in a school that has been around since 1778, has been written about over three times in the past five years by the nations oldest secondary school newspaper, and is against the institutions rules has more than enough reasons to be documented by the wikipedia. 200.106.189.82 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The main problem as I see it is that TUB is a very young group (according to the Phillipean headline, "In Violation of School Policy, PA Group Forms Secret Society", 2000.) That students did something that broke a school's rules is not notable, even if the students attend a private school. In general, the criteria for secret societies should be a combination of longevity and notable members -- as of yet, the oldest members of this society have just graduated college. Sdedeo 19:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Although this society does not have any notable alumni as of yet, societies at Andover have produced such notable characters as Henry Stimson and Preston, George and George W. Bush. Maybe not popular, but notable nonetheless. Although just any society at any school may not be deserving of wiki fame, a society in the tradition of long lasting secret brotherhoods (it was an AUV alumni that allegedly co-founded the Skull and Bones), and at a school that has matriculated Samuel Morse, Oliver Wendell Holmes, two presidents, two nephews of George Washington, and half of the Kennedy family arguably deserves a slice, albeit thin, of this presumably free exchange of information.Octagon 19:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sdedeo, I would like to point out that the first encounter with the society was in 2000, this by no means confirms that this was the date the society was started. For all we know it could date back a couple of decades. Also, keep in mind that this is under the heading of secret societies, organizations which usually keep their membership and most other information private. This means that even if it did have notable members, we would not know about them. Therefore your standard of "a combination of longevity and notable members" is completley based on something that we do not know. This means your standard requires a secret society to make public their membership and their date of founding, two things most societies will not do. The author obviously chose to write only on the fact that he could reference from the school newspaper because it is the nature of the wikipedia to contain information that can be confirmed. I can tell you for a fact that the author left out the rumors that exist about this society, such as the story that they have members in the administration, they run all the clubs on campus, have society cars and a society house near by in Lawrence, MA. Basically, the point of the article is to start building information on this society which is not just rumor, which last time I checked was perfectly all right in the wikipedia. I don't mean to be petty or insulting but it is begining to seem that you are trying to try and remove this article for personal reasons rather than to keep the wikipedia free of unworthy information, because clearly this article has been written for the purpose to collect fact checked information that would otherwise be lost to an ill managed archvie of The Phillipian.
  • Keep. See Samdupont & Alf. Also, note- to claim that non-notability to a select audience is a basis for deletion rather than non-notability to the audience as a whole is unfair to those who do in fact find an article about a secret society notable, i.e. just because you don't care doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Phillips Academy is a school with enrollment of over 1100 students, and hundreds of faculty and staff. The references have been verified. Wikipedia is now a credible reference that consolidates the available information about something that pertains to at least 1500 people who are affiliated with the school at this moment, not to mention the hundreds that have passed through at least since its the year that it is supposed to have been founded. Obviously this is something notable to them, as they had multiple articles in their school newspaper. Will we deny them? Perhaps these people will have information to add. Wikipedia employs the same philosophy under its policy on stubs; not much information now, but with potential. (Unsigned vote by PanteraCC09 (talk · contribs), first edit)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T.U.B.&oldid=1138813801"