Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noctuam Society


 * 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. Consensus is that this is a non-notable private club. Opinions from very new accounts, very likely by people related to the topic (or all by one person), are discounted.  Sandstein  10:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Noctuam Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, speedy tag deleted by brand new editor Melcous (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. There is no credible claim of significance. And that's understandable when you search for sources in an attempt to verify any notability and find there are none. --Sam Sailor Talk! 09:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - as per nom. Only 51 hits on google, and most of them are not good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Noctuam Society is a well known creative collective and private men's organization in the Ohio region and throughout the midwest. It performs many philanthropic functions and has fairly significant social outreach. --TimeKiller321 Talk! 05:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeKiller321 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: TimeKiller321 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * — Of course TimeKiller321 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. The contributor is allowed to defend their post.  —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as a non-notable club. At best there is some local notability, but that's hardly enough to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is precedence for clubs with a more regional scope of notability located on the List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States page. This group has a social and economic impact within a fairly substantial region of the country. Although this organization doesn't date back to antiquity, it is a very valid source of interest for a great number of people.66.193.17.93 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page is of great interest to those of us in the midwest and members of the creative community. The NS is actually something of an elitist club but is notorious for funding very elaborate installations in Columbus, Cleveland, Philly and Cleveland, while keeping their involvement very subtle. As mentioned above, not only is there precedence for regionalized organizations on the List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States page, but Wikipedia is rife with very similar examples. To delete this burgeoning page would be a disservice to the community who has an interest in private clubs, such as this and as well, the creative community as a whole.2602:301:77F0:7350:106C:A277:ECEB:F1A6 (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Formal input below - brief note here that the problem is that no reliable source backs up any of these claims - not the claim it's elitist, not the claim it's notorious for funding very elaborate installations in Columbus, Cleveland, Philly and Cleveland, and not the claim for keeping their involvement very subtle. No sources, just original hearsay. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: I for one am very interested in the subject of secretive clubs and am very interested to see how this page continues to develop. The page wasn't particularly well written but has more than enough merit on its face to remain live. And to cut directly to the chase, yes, I created this account specifically to comment on this page. Just because someone is new to a forum doesn't make their POV any less valid than any other. Frankly, the level of snobbery taking place here is shameful, although not wholly unexpected.Stop Fighting Trolls (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Stop Fighting Trolls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - new users may be unaware that Wikipedia has specific rules for inclusion. In this case the relevant issue is that of "notability", that is, basically, coverage of the topic in independent sources. (There is more to it; please read the link I provided.) Can any of you arguing to keep this article point to such sources? If not, the article will be deleted. Lady  of  Shalott  02:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is more than enough precedence for the continued existence of this page and I believe the argument for the group's "notability" has been very well established by myself and others above. This page has already been shown to be of great interest regarding a notable and seclusive organization. Ashram321 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Ashram321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — That is correct, Melcous (talk). I've decided to make a new profile for each page edit I make in order to prove this point. Again, "Just because someone is new to a forum doesn't make their POV any less valid than any other. Frankly, the level of snobbery taking place here is shameful, although not wholly unexpected." Ashram321 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me just make sure I understand this. "I've decided to make a new profile for each page edit I make in order to prove this point." By this admission, you are saying you are practicing in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, which is highly frowned on, and could lead to your account be blocked for this. Also, doing this to show that there is more of a concensus to your viewpoint is cheating the system. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Absolutely not. I'm not pretending to be anyone else. It is just to prove the absurdity of the level of snobbery, bullying and trolling that takes place on WP's back end. So much for 2 of the 5 pillars upon which Wikipedia claims to operate. (Neutral POV & Civility) Rather than being a neutral place for information and learning, unfortunately pages like this are looking more and more like the comments section of a cheap YouTube video. Ashram321 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to make things clear, I wasn't trying to break any Wikipedia policies. I was just trying to create a page (mind, my first page) regarding a group which I find fascinating and about which little information is available, likely by design. The group does have a very notable presence in the midwest region of the country and within the creative community. And the reasons given above, in favor of this page continuing are very compelling. I'm sure that if this page were to be left active, it would soon grow in both content and more verifiable references. Whereas, if it were to be deleted, the little information that does exist publicly about this group would have no place to coalesce. (Perhaps, this is also by design...) That being said, I do believe strongly that this page deserves to remain active and I greatly appreciate the support but I really don't want anyone to be harassed or to lose their accounts over this. TimeKiller321 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - policy-based decision-making here is quite clear - this is not a notable topic, as defined by the guidelines: the single potentially relevant reference that would help notability is a non-specific link to a portal page, is attached to bizarre article text claims, and does not show up on a site-specific secondary search of the portal page. A further search using the usual tools comes up empty. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No credible claim of either significance or notability.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:06, 20 April 2016 (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.