Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"The Board" in Hollywood FL


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Board" in Hollywood FL

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I suspect this article is a hoax. Somewhat strange and vague description is "verified" by equally vague off-line sources.  Pink Bull  01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. I admit that I have not seen the offline sources, but the overall vagueness of the article leads me to suspect that the offline sources do not mention this group, but at best refer to the psychological benefits of small groups in general, or something like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Metropolitan90. Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep' Appears its entry is related to a group which is of interest to a local area. Will have encyclopedic value with an interest in Anthropolgy. Although, more verifiable sources would be welcome I acknowledge this difficulty when discussing local societal groups/ organizations where there may not be many sources. Indeed this difficulty is acknowledged in the article where the author states this. Certainly, its enclopedic value is of interest and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.119 (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)  — 166.137.11.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I just learned about this group at school and happened to find this while searching on Wikipedia. Was hoping for more information. I actually have stuff i can add from what i know. Will add later. Why is it up fro deletion? i live in Hollywood. There is so much irrelevance on Wikipedia at least this is relevant to my school work at the mo. So I vote keep! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny20101 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)  — Johnny20101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I agree with the above. It has encyclopedic value and therefore, should remain. Updates along the way from other users will add to its content, the very essence of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.106.25 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)  — 71.196.106.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Interesting. Certainly of value and should be kept. As mentioned more sources would be good but im sure members will add more in the near future with regular updates.--Meritstarzzz (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting and valuable? WP:NPROF also comes to mind. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would advise the "keep" supporters that if they can provide sources to establish the validity of this article, they should do so. Right now it seems this discussion is split between "keep" supporters who believe this group is of encyclopedic value, and "delete" supporters who don't even believe this group exists at all. Obviously, if the "keep" supporters could provide sources to prove the group existed, that would give them a significant advantage in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "The exact date of The Board founding is uncertain. No known reference to the founding date is found in any primary or secondary source material." "The group is well known[citation needed] for its difficult application process, with most applications to join being unsuccessful. The application process and activity is shrouded with secrecy with members remaining loyal and committed to the groups ethos." Oh dear. Here we go again. Why do so many junk article writers say things like this? At least two refs are given, but (of course) are hard copy and obscure so we can't see them. 'Marcus Pokus' - well well. I used to know his first cousin Hocus. Not a common surname. Seems to be equivalent to 'attempt' or 'experiment' in English. I would second Metropolitan90's advice about a bit mire proof of existence - proof that we poor outsiders who are merely committed to Wikipedia's ethos can see for ourselves. As to school work, "I just learned about this group at school" - they must teach some interesting things in American schools even if the authorities never realise about all the vampires. Would you tell your classmates that they need to pull more weight than "Interesting. Certainly of value and should be kept" without giving evidence to support. And to those making this 'attempt' or 'experiment', I give this 5/10. There's been much worse, and much better. Peridon (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I notice alot of nonsense written on these kind of threads about#sources# and #validity#I think that at times people do not really understand what the terms mean or how they apply in certain situations. From what I read this article is about a social group based in a local community. Therefore, its not surprising that written #sources# will be limited. I agreed to Keep this article based on these facts. Not all social groups and situations are sourced in this context.  To me the article was a broad summary of some group, it had no other benefit then to inform the reader of its existence within that community. Therefore, informing and widening knowledge - the reason and very essence of sites such as Wikipedia. I therefore, stand by my comment above to Keep. If the author is around it would be nice to hear their views. Im almost at the end of my Masters in Sociology and was wanting further info on this group, after hearing about at school. Thanks. . --Johnny20101 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Note Metropolitan90 has replaced my post above after it was deleted by User:Johnny20101. Do not delete or alter other peoples posts. This is vandalism and can lead to being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be nice to have an accessible proof of the existence of this group. Please see WP:RS and WP:GNG. Also, please do not tell us how Wikipedia runs - we already know. "Not all social groups and situations are sourced in this context.". True. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. There are many things not in Wikipedia. Some of those not here should be. Many shouldn't. Our encyclopaedia, our rules (translation: our ball and our field, our rules...). Peridon (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I found a paper copy of the 1962 edition of Social Thought From Lore To Science in my local university library and in the page range named in the cite I've not found any mention of this group. Also as a general thought, I would imagine that a group with an application failure rate of 99% would attract some local comment in its own community.  I find it strange therefore that there are no mentions in local press let alone academic journals.  Despite my best efforts and trying to assume good faith I can't help wondering if this article and hence this discussion is part of a sociological experiment. NtheP (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I found an electronic version of the 1991 paper Time, interaction, and performance: A theory of groups cited in the article. (I've put a copy here) It does not mention this group at all. Dr pda (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with two of the references now appearing to be dubious, I am very sceptical about the remainder and the whole validity of this article. NtheP (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you to NtheP and Dr pda for your research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete until something solid is cited and quoted. All these cites so far are coming up . It screams hoax.LeadSongDog  come howl!  23:30, 16 December 2010 (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.