Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Young Guns


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Young Guns

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete "Secret society"? Absolute nonsense. All this is, is a bunch of tech guys who get together socially. Is this what Wikipedia is about now, repeating exaggerated nonsense from glossy magazine articles? AlistairMcMillan 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, an interesting magazine article angle does not necessarily equate to significance. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Since it's reported by Rolling Stone Magazine, a reliable source, this gives them some notability. Another thing to consider are the significance of some of its members, and I think it's marginally notable per WP:ORG regarding non-comercial organizations.--Alasdair 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? This isn't an actual organisation, it's a bunch of guys who get to together socially outside of work. AlistairMcMillan 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The group seems to be reported not only by Rolling Stone, but also corroborated by other sources. A simple google search for 'baby billionaires' turns up a number of hits. Notoriety of group's members adds to significance. Agree with Alasdair, notable per WP:ORG 71.108.61.8 04:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) -- 04:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the phrase "baby billionaires" returns a number of hits, but they either refer to something completely different, or refer simply to the Rolling Stone article. If there are other sources, which I doubt, please provide them. AlistairMcMillan 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, group is likely notable but the article needs work. Realkyhick 05:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the Rolling Stone article. AlistairMcMillan 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Nothing asserts notability - all of the article seems based on a single article by a Rolling Stone reporter. Has not been picked up as a concept by any other news organisation I can find. Wikipedia is not a mirror of a single article that noone else in the world cares enough about to write on - Peripitus (Talk) 07:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - One magazine article in Rolling Stone about a social group certainly does not equal enduring or significant notability. As someone else said, this isn't what wikipedia is about.  /Blaxthos 14:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A small mention in Rolling Stone is not enough Corpx 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with all of the articles above. Wikipedia is just progressing this fairy tale of an article from one magazine. Giving the false impression of a "secret society" and someone is going to great lengths to keep it for whatever reason. Keeping this article give merit to fictional world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.79.70 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to Young Guns Unnotable PR pablum; might as well use this as a RD as a probable search string for the film. Nate 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Group is reported on by a reliable and respected source. Article was not a "small mention" as described by Corpx -- it was the centerfold of the November 2006 issue and spans 7 pages. 68.4.221.17 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE The group does NOT EXIST. Honestly, I work in silicon valley too. This is just a fictional back story to Rolling Stone's article to make it more interesting. The fact remains, a few of these guys are older than 30, and none of them (as you can easily find out by looking at their businesses or any interviews) are not billionaires. The richest being chad hurley who got 600M in the youtube buyout. This is continueing fiction as fact and this has no place at Wikipedia. This is not what wikipedia stands for, to perpetuate urban myths as complete fact. Believe it or not, Rolling Stones isnt always truthful, it is an entertainment magazine at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.79.70 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get the idea the group is "fictional" or a "back story" -- is this your personal theory? None of the sources cited -- even by detractors -- dispute that the group exists, only whether the members are billionaires. Plaxo even links the article on their own blog . 68.14.79.70, if you have a source proving this group is made up and Rolling Stone fabricated the whole thing, share it. Saying, "I work in the same general geographic area as them" does not make you a reliable source. 71.108.61.8 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no secret society, there is no "baby billionaires". This is what happens when you let a bunch of 12 year olds run Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.79.70 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, non-notable group. Keb25 11:05, 8 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.