Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Gorgon's Head
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. While this may exist, notability has not been established. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Order of the Gorgon's Head[edit]
- Order of the Gorgon's Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No independent sources show notability for this student "order". This was previously nominated under the title Gorgon's Head and the result was to redirect to this title, but I don't see where the notability is under any title. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A google search comes up with no RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: It may be noteworthy, but we have no way of verifying that this "secret society" actually exists, other than to confirm that something called "Gorgon Head" is registered with the government, which tells us nothing about what it is. Thus I think it constitutes Original Research and should get the axe. Further, it was deleted before, under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_the_Gorgon's_Head_Lodge. Fogster (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't think it constitutes original research. It has cited to sources and really doesn't contain much more than basic factual notes. Also I don't think it should be deleted just because it can't be found on google or very little is know about it. Wikipedia is suppose to be a place where people share their knowledge about everything and unless the creator is shown to be acting in bad faith, I think it should be kept as it appears to be an interesting organization that may have some importance. Blahblah5555 (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.