Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull and Bones historical connections (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Skull and Bones historical connections
I nominated this page for deletion a month ago; the discussion terminated in no consensus. As before, with minor changes marked: One of the serious concerns with the article - the presence of large direct quotations from books and other sources - has been dealt with. However, little else has changed since I first nominated this article for deletion about a month ago. It's quite likely that the sheer size of the article simply makes cleanup an impossible task. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The length of this article (approx. 250 241 kb) is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book.
 * 2) The writing style of the entire article is inappropriate. The whole thing is filled with innuendo, speculations, uncited accusations, and gossip.
 * 3) Finally, and most importantly, virtually nothing is cited. The article makes a number of extraordinary claims about the involvement of the Skull and Bones group in drug dealing, but there are only 20 18 citations in the entire article, most of which are for auxiliary points. To put that in perspective, that's about one citation for each 12 13 kilobytes of text.
 * See also: AFD: Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Another article by the same authors, with many of the same issues. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Holy page length, Batman! This article clearly can't be saved, as it hasn't really changed much in a month. It fails WP:NPOV and is barely cited. I would have no objection to it coming back in the form of multiple, NPOV articles, but I'm not sure how possible this is. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This is a quater megabyte long, unverifyable and almost unreadable. It certainly is not an encyclopedia article. --IslaySolomon 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Every policy applies here but WP:PORN BIO. It's quite remarkable. AdamBiswanger1 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think anyone has climbed the Reichstag whilst dressed as Spider-Man yet. Besides that, though... Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anything worth saving (good luck pulling it out of that mess) to Skull and Bones --Pboyd04 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Forceful Delete That's no article, its a giant mess of POV, unsourced speculation SM247 My Talk  04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like a giant waste dump for OR. Zos 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I read the Keep votes from the 1st AfD as "get this article in shape or else". It's time for else. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or Else Massive consipacruft. --DarkAudit 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with AdamBiswanger1 above. ouch -- MrDolomite 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsalvagable UNBELIEVABLY long (about 38,000 words, maybe half-a-book in length) OR mess. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - where did all this text come from? Oi vey. HumbleGod 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was mostly created as a split from Skull and Bones by, then expanded by (who, it appears, wrote a lot of that text to start with). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too wordy and too LONGGG...sorry!-- Tdxi an  g  07:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep - the length is what made me notice the article in the first place; it was (and still is!) high up on Special:Longpages. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Mad, mad, mad. -- GWO
 * Mild keep.  Being too long is not a valid reason for deletion.   We usually ask for citations and let articles stew for a while before deleting them.  Have the major contributors refused to cite sources?  A quick glance and the writing style seemed alright, though I don't know about the content.   Justforasecond 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The users who originally created the article haven't touched it for months; in fact,, who wrote most of the original article, has only made one edit since April. The recent quote cleanup was carried out by another user. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As an aside, I just noticed another article in the same vein: Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. I'm going to give fair warning on this one before nominating it, but it appears to have many of the same issues - a near-total lack of sources, extraordinary claims, and general WP:OR. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm going to go ahead and nominate that one, too. Another user commented that s/he "very seriously considered putting it up for AfD" in April, and little seems to have changed since. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wholly original research (Batman)! Delete. David | Talk 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Presents as fact a bunch of conspiracy theories. This article is hopeless.  --Joelmills 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR --Satori Son 07:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I wouldn't oppose a strongly reduced and rigorously cited section in the main Skull and Bones article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, enormous block of original research. Unreadable too. Look at the first version of the page, when it was creatoed, this just screams "copied and pasted" from somewhere... but google was no help. - Motor (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The original version was split out from the Skull and Bones article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete tedious nonsense. Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is literally the first time I've been unable to read an article properly before voting on deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a... whatever this is. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's unpublished book, it seems, and we're not in the business of publishing...whatever this is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks as (obsessively paranoid) original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And from there it can be used as a text in paranoid schizophrenia. (I don't think they want it, either.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Wikibooks is primarily intended for educational texts. I really don't think this qualifies. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. I aggressively pushed for its deletion before and I will do so now. This is in an unsalvageably bad state beyond cleanup, it might very well be a copyright violation and it has innumerable other issues. Please trash this (and start anew, if you must.) Grand  master  ka  04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Srong delete as encyclopedic, non cited, original research all 241 kilobytes of it.--John Lake 04:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. For reasons cited above. Kaldari 21:07, 9 July 2006 (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.