Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Gorgon's Head Lodge


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 13:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Gorgon's Head Lodge

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy deletion, I decided to bring it here. This gets literally one result on Google, but That seems to point towards what might be a reliable source. It's a secret society, but we do have articles on plenty of these... we just need evidence of coverage by reliable sources.--W.marsh 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how this is any different to a private WEB board. It is unverifiable WP:V and apart from supposidly existing for 100 years it is not notable at all apart from being 'secret'. The burder is on the author to show these, especially with something that will be debated over its existance and notibility.--Dacium 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless verifiability is ascertained, anyone could make up articles like this. Xiner (talk, email) 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that this is fabricated, or that, while it is true, because other, similar, articles could be made-up, this one must be deleted ? -- Simon Cursitor


 * Keep When "Orange County NC property ownership" is searched on Yahoo.com, you may open the Orange County Tax Dept website. Then click on "Orange County Interactive GIS Mapping Systems" then search "Gorgons Head Lodge" when you get to the page: .  This verifies the existence of the dwelling.  The fact that less is known about it than other secret societies does not make it non-existent.--Uncalum 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh you could verify my house through that method, and millions of other dwellings. Wikipedia is not a directory, though. --W.marsh 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "UH" so what is the problem with it then?--Uncalum 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:N. --W.marsh 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's the significance of having ANY society available on Wikipedia?--Uncalum 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because many have been written about non-trivially by published sources. E.g. Skull and Bones. We write articles based on those sources, if they don't exist, we can't really have an accurate, neutral article. --W.marsh 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the whole concept of Wikipedia: an article can exist and be edited until some neutrality is attained? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncalum (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * But if they aren't drawn from any published sources, the contents of an article are just the opinions of the random anonymous editors of that article. --W.marsh 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. However, these aren't opinions.  Ahowever, just because no published articles have been written on the subject does not necessarily indicate that the information is purely opinion or untrue.  I would think that the concept of Wikipedia would help this article reach a general consensus on the subject.  You, obviously, have more experience in this matter, so obviously, it is up to you.Uncalum 01:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Such information really might exist, the link I mentioned above is a strong clue. A good article could potentially be written here, if someone really did their homework. --W.marsh 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Without giving away too much information, I myself was a member of the organization, which is how I know of the existence and of specific details. I know it is difficult for that to be used as a source though, so if it needs to be deleted, I understand.Uncalum 02:06, 19 February 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.