Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Illuminus Organisation

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, ignoring the flock of anon astroturfers

The Illuminus Organisation
This page is of spurious content, seems to be part of a wikispam/wiki-advertising attempt, and does not appear to be worth an encyclopedia entry. This entry seems to refer to the blog at http://www.illuminus.org.uk/, which seems to be a "hacking"/beginning computer programming blog created by people who cannot spell. The site seems to be unimpressive and authored by people who don't seem authorative or notable in the subject matter, and the organization does not appear to be regognized as notable by anyone else, according to a Google test and a glimpse at the Alexa entry for the site. I suggest deletion for this article. Perhaps noteworthy as evidence of a possible effort at wikipedia-based advertising for this organization is the attempted addition of a link to this article under the "See Also" section of the The Illuminati article. Samrolken 9 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
 * You clearly will not win an argument based on triviality, so much for the Wikipedia editors. - Comment by User:80.192.242.42, who vandalized this vfd notice.
 * Delete. No verifiable references, POV hoax. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)
 * Delete POV essay about non-notable forum. Gets 13 unique Googles, the rest are from within their site. Even some of the 13 refer to the Illuminati (of Angels and Demons fame). No traffic data available on Alexa. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
 * Delete. nonverifiable. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. This site appears to be difficult to find information on because I think their only members involve young programmers, and they do not appear to make any profit from their web site. Thanks. user:80.192.242.42
 * Delete. I am the author of the Vfd entry, I don't know if making the entry counts as a vote or not. Samrolken 10:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You better vote explicitely. Opinions about VfD author's vote vary. mikka (t) 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. The statements aren't based on objective information since the political views are different, also the user Samrolken is degrading the members of the group and predisposing other voters by saying non verified information. - Vote by User:Guille1719, user's first edit.
 * Don't Delete. It seems that this site is a recognised anarchy group and is a firm part of larger organisations within the indymedia group, it is worthy of an entry even if the political views are not necessarily shared by some editors, myself included. - Vote by User:81.174.132.207, user's first edit.
 * Don't Delete. There is no pose of theart towards this information i see no reason why this should be deleted - Vote by User:204.244.83.90, user's only edit.
 * Don't Delete. From the evidence of the research I have done myself through querying friends of "those sort" it appears they have been heard of and have been active for many years in the "underground," many groups have lost members to this certain "organization" apparently. According to some programmers I know, the actual site is for "recruitement," as some sort of analysing thing or something. They've past ties with IndyMedia, as that guy said above... noteworthy. On a last point, from what i have seen on their website. I cannot find many problems with their spelling and Grammar as Samrolken has suggested. Although i can notice straight he has problems spelling. For one he spelt recognised as "Regognized" and organisation as "Organization". - Vote by User:62.255.64.6.
 * NOTE: The "Don't Delete" votes above by anonymous were all made from the United Kingdom, the home of the webpage in question. Also noteworthy is that they all voted the same "Don't Delete" vote, which is never used by wikipedia community members who vote to keep a page. For this reasons, these votes appear to be sock-puppets.


 * Delete pov, unverifiable. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 00:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - "too secret", sockpuppet creation, another poster child for speedy deletion procedure update. This leaks into WP mirrors in no time. - Skysmith 12:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) ('''comment from anon user:80.192.242.42. this anon has posted only to the article and this VFD''' - Skysmith 09:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Admittedly the page does need to be cleaned up, however, one cannot deny that the organisation itself exists, can one?  I refer one to the dictionary definition of; organisation (www.dictionary.com). a : the act or process of organizing or of being organized b : the condition of being organized.  It does seem that a group of persons have come together through shared political views, therefore they have organised to become the afore mentioned organisation. Tupence added. Eris
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.