Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Societies of Duke University


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Secret Societies of Duke University

 * – ( View AfD View log )

DePRODed with no reason given. No coverage outside of the article from the school newspaper, not enough coverage to claim notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a new section inside of Duke University, and integrate any salvageable information from this article into that one due to notability concerns. The subject matter may be of note to Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced but likely does not deserve a standalone article.  elektrik SHOOS  23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should also be noted that you don't need to give a reason when you're dePRODing an article, and the fact that an article that previously was nominated for deletion (in any form) is not a valid criteria for deletion.  elektrik SHOOS  23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I know. You'll notice that I didn't give the prod as my reason for it's deletion, I was just stating why I was bringing it to an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Duke University if there is any salvageable content. Otherwise, just redirect. There's not sufficient evidence of the notability either of specific societies, or of the general idea of Duke University Secret Societies, to justify keeping this as a standalone article.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could merge the content but one campus newspaper isn't a very good source. The Land (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanavb (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete there's not much there. Campus gossip is a poor way of creating an encyclopaedic article. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely does not deserve a stand-alone article. I would not even recommend merging it. A re-direct should do, at least till some notability.Kanavb (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Its like a ghost story, permeated by supposition - this is not encyclopedic. Mark   Dask  18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing anything that's explicitly citable.  And obviously discarding any privacy questions, there's nothing to demonstrate why this should be included as notable.  Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Added some more notable links, any organization that claims an American president as an alumnus is certainly notable. The university's magazine and other sources also consider this to be a credible list of organizations. - 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As good as the effort was, the links seem to suffer from all the same issues as above (and indeed all associations seem to be "alleged").--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni↑talk↓  03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Added a link to an official Duke webpage, solidifying the claim that President Nixon was a member. No allegation about it. - 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, this is the same IP as the other unsigned !vote above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I wasn't an idiot and had done just a bit more clicking I would have learned that it's an IP address at Duke University, so it may very well be different people. That being said, given the unique way the comment was signed, it's likely the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 6 April 2011 (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.