Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull & Keys


 * 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The result was keep, withdrawn also.  Daniel  08:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Skull &amp; Keys

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Google comes up with very few hits for the existence of Skull & Keys, and those that are there are merely passing mentions. There are no articles in news.google.com, and those in books.google.com are also just passing mentions, generally that such and such a person was a member. We need reliable sources to write an article from, or this fails WP:V. Corvus cornix 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source better If its really been around since 1892 and if people are being mentioned as members in directories, then we should have an article on it. The sources already in the article have info in them, they just aren't formatted cleanly, and you have to read them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have sourced it better if I could have, but I can't find anything to write an article from. What sources in the article can you write an article from?  Corvus cornix 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your right in that there is very little, thats the problem of a secret society. But by reading the two references I was able to substantiate all but one paragraph, and now thats flagged. Enough to keep as a stub. Plus you forget to look under "Skull and Keys" in the news archive. Look here at the Oakland Tribune writing about the "running" and other pranks. You always have to search under all variations of person's or an organization's name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think phigam.org is a reliable source. Corvus cornix 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason behind your thinking? Its a published article and contains all the references used, and had been unimpeached for 75 years. Why on Earth would you think its unreliable? Did you read it or just look at the url? Do you think its an elaborate fraternity prank? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources, and appears to be notable. Bearian 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Richard Arthur Norton has provided sufficient details as to prove notability, so I will withdraw this nom. Corvus cornix 16:49, 26 September 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.