Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Secret Societies
Completely inactive WikiProject, never appears to have gotten started, nothing really worth saving. ^demon[omg plz] 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is inherently impossible to write an article about an actual secret sociery.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I stand corrected. Keep, then.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - am now trying to reorganize project. The main Category:Secret societies has 143 articles, which I think at least implicitly states that not only is it possible to write articles about such organizations, but also that several people have already done so. John Carter 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Carter's statement of intent to reactivate project. (Otherwise I'd suggest "tag historical" rather than "delete".)  There's no project-related activity on the project's talk page, but there's some (old) content beyond the boilerplate.  Many of the articles in the category are just excerpts from the Britannica and from one book, and in many cases couldn't be expanded much beyond that from reliable sources; but there's enough scope, well enough defined, to make this project useful.  Biggest challenge is probably separating documented facts from vandal hoaxes from centuries-old hoaxes. Barno (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not a big fan of these articles due to the conspiracy theories, but the Carbonari, the Afrikaner Broederbond and the League of 1585 could all have articles written on them. JASpencer (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if possible, request speedy close of debate one way or another. It's really hard to recruit new members for a project being considered for deletion, you know? :) John Carter (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per  and, above.  Cirt (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Week Keep, with Comment - I have no problem with the project in concept... but there is one issue that I am very concerned about. What are the criteria for inclusion of articles under this project.  It gives three slightly conflicting definitions of "Secret Society" under its Scope... Which one should be applied?  What makes something a "Secret society"?  This question has ramifications for several other projects and articles, such as those for Freemasonry, Knights of Columbus, and other organizations and fraternities that have been called "secret societies" over the years. Most of these do not really belong under that heading ... their membership is public, they meet in large prominent buildings that are clearly identified as being meeting halls for the organization involved, their rituals are published, their finances are public record... ie they are not really "secret"... even if they have a tradition of not discussing what happens in meetings with outsiders (which is true of many organizations that are not considered "Secret societies"... Is the Vatican's College of Cardinals a "Secret Society"?  Is the board of directors of IBM a secret society?... both meet in behind closed doors and will not discuss what occured at their meetings.)  There is the strong possiblility of POV pushing and edit warring here, and people disagree as to whether an aritcle that is listed in the project belongs or not.  I think there needs to be a clear criteria as to whether an article fits within the scope of this project?   What does define a Secret society? Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and good luck in the effort.  Snowolf How can I help? 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, whilst I think a rescue attempt is admirable I'd have concerns about the longer term sustainability of the project. There is a lack of clarity around scope and direction and given the lack of participation in the past, and the range of projects which current participants are involved in, I'd question how viable this is in the longer term.  I also question the requirement, noting the nomination there has clearly been a lack of interest in the project which would tend to suggest that it's not needed.  There is a risk that this serves as a magnet for all who wear tin-foil liners in ther hats, since several of the avilable definitions of secret societies are pretty wide-ranging; pretty much every business fits inside it at the moment because competitive information is kept private and all organisational cultures have formal and informal rituals of entry and exit.  I also recognise that the arguments in defence of existence don't need to bother about viability, sustainability or indeed the realities of definitions. ALR (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should also be noted that Blueboar above has reverted content which existed on the project page since before the attempt to revive it, and that ALR supported him in that effort. Also, the definitions exist on the Secret societies page. Personally, I am forced to question whether their own involvement with attempting to indicate that one group which almost certainly does meet the requirements of the definition on the Secret societies page, Freemasonry, may be unconciously biasing their opinions. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much to ask that you respond to the points that I've made regarding the viability of the project, rather than focussing your attention on me as a contributor? I have legitimate concerns about this project which are not confined to one article.
 * ALR (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Users are making an attempt at reviving the project.  I'd suggest withdrawing the nomination and let the project work on its own for some period of time and then renom. it if the resurrection doesn't work out.  --Son (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We need more work on topics like this. Scope is different enough from WikiProject Occult.I also think that an appropriate definition of secret society is feasible.Zara1709 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.