Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ox 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @010  · 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ox Society

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(Originally nominated by PRRfan for reason "delete unless cite provided")
 * As a member of this society and someone who is in contact with nearly 30 years of Ox alumni, I have created this article to contribute to the list of secret societies at Yale University. I will be adding verifiable details soon, as the article at present is unfinished. As you know, many details are not my right to share for the secretive nature of the organization, but I will be consulting with others as to how much information we can list publicly. Please notify me if you have any further queries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar21 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/08 18:16:27
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETEone of 33 secret societies at Yale.  Appears that the only thing that we can varify is that they are secret, hardly a notable trait.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N unless Ishtar21 can provide those sources by the AfD close date. -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. By definition a secret society can not be verifiable or notable. And what is it about these societies at American universities that people seem to find so important? I went to university in England and in Poland and managed to study and have a social life (actually much more of the latter than the former) without any formal definitions of or names for my friendship groups. At least this one doesn't follow the ridiculously pretentious practice of using Greek letters to name itself, but, come on, let's get serious, how is a group of friends notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Skull and Bones, a secret society, is quite notable. As to your second point - as an American, I share your befuddlement. I suppose it's some combination of the ideal of "equality" (perhaps not original to America, but certainly popularized by a land with no guaranteed birth-right, Divine-Right Kings or Queens - Elvis and Freddy Mercury exempted), fused with the grand American pastime of taking quaint notions to ridiculous extremes - in this case, setting up entire structures so that everybody can have a social life, even those too dull, unimaginative, and/or timid to find one on their own. May the rest of the world learn at our expense. I'd say that ultimately, fraternities, sororities, and other such organizations are about as useful - and pretentious - as heraldry and Knighthood. Badger Drink (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we personally find these organizations useful/pretentious/etc aren't reasons to delete or keep this article. Let's stay focused on encyclopedic quality and Wikipedia policy. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All work and no side-tangents make Jack a dull, mercenary stick-in-the-mud. Badger Drink (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - while some secret societies can be notable (see my reply to Phil Bridger, above), this one seems to fail WP:N. The sources currently provided are, in order: 1) a membership roster published in a borderline blog (showing that it exists, but offering nothing substantial), 2) a link to the front page of a student-run newspaper's website - no mention of Ox on that page, 3) a book describing an "Ox Head Society" from 19th century China - I'll assume good faith, and figure that this is merely the result of an Ivy League student too stupid to manage a useful Google search, rather than assume outright intent to deceit on his part - and 4) a post on a webforum. Nothing useful, and it only calls into question whether anybody in this secret society has ever read an encyclopedia, since whoever wrote this article clearly has no clue as to what constitutes an encyclopedic source. Finally, even if Ishtar21 were to follow through on his promise, the sources provided would still be primary - and secondary sources are what matters for notability. Badger Drink (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. You say that some secret societies can be notable, but surely, if they are truly secret, they will, by definition of the word "secret", be neither verifiable nor notable. If the sources required to comply with either of these tests exist then the society is not secret. I know that this is a digression from the main point, which is that we agree that this should be deleted, but I think that it's an important point to make that nothing genuinely secret can be verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (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.