Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscurami

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 debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obscurami

del way too obscurami. Sorry dude, but the provided external links look highly dubious to me, and I don't see better ones. mikka (t) 10:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for being way too obscurami, I mean way too obscure. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, go ahead delete it - but I do know that this term has been used in the same context it has been addressed in the article. It has been the topic for debate across conspiracy forums. In any case I can't argue your statement, I was actually expecting this day to come, seeing as I don't have enough online evidence to submit it's notability just yet. However please bear in mind that there are many more articles within the "conspiracy theory" and "secret society" categories that have no links or even elements to source it, not to mention hardly anything written about them. An example of this could be found at Illuminus, just to name one. But there are many more that have averted deletion and have very little in terms of information or source material. Piecraft 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gibberish per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for the pure reason that I am fed up with people like the above poster who continuously vote on articles, especially by making such remarks as calling it gibberish when they have no previous knowledge surrounding the occult, the conspiracy theory world or even secret societies. This is in fact a confirmed name in the world of secret societies, and if this article goes then you should look at the other articles relating to other less notable and unverified secret scoieties here Secret societies. Piecraft 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi there. I am very interested in the occult, conspiracy theories and secret societies and the like. Indeed they are some of my favourite interests. I would be very interested in learning more about them. I only voted delete because of Wikipedia guidelines. Personally, I'd be very happy for this to be kept. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi, I understand all the above (and below) statements regarding the lack of verification for such a term related tot he existence of this "purported" secret society - however I feel insulted (and this was the purpose for my reason of keeping the article) that some people would simply write the article off as gibberish or ""fabrication" when I have attempted to put into words all that I do know or have read and been told of this secret alliance. I do realise that this article is probably not entirely in keeping with the Wikipedia guidelines, and this is why my initial comment was to delete if everyone thought it was truly not worthy. But again I digress, that there are many more articles related to conspiracy and secret societies with less information and sources than this one. This is what I tried pointing out with my first comment. In any case I will attempt to continue my search on finding further information and possibly sources that will help verify this article, but do remember that this is if anything a secret society - and as far as I know most secret societies like to be kept secret otherwise they defy their purpose. The only reason we know of Freemasonry and the supposed Illuminati (which is still debatable and highly conceptual in my opinion) is because millions of people have discussed them in relation to common problems and events in today's world. If you want to find out more about this article or continue any discussion relating to these areas please don't hesitate to contribute to my talk page. In nay case thanks for your interest Zordrac. I will be saving this aticle on my talk page so as my entire work will not have been in vain. Piecraft 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You correctly understood that the main issue here is wikipedia:Verifiability. "Gibberish" and "fabrication" don't refer to you. There is no reason not to believe that you honestly collected bits and pieces of what you've heard about this. But this does not preclude the fact that you wqere collecting gibberish. In wikipedia, only reputable works are legitimate source of verification. The only reason we have an article about Freemasonry is precisely because millions of people spoke of them and then reputable and trained historians wrote about them. By definition, wikipedia authors are not considered "reputable". Please make your article printed in, e.g., Boston Globe, wait for a discussion and then we'll see. mikka (t) 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; has only 34 search results from Google, and some are here on Wikipedia, and others are in non-English-language sites. Maybe it is indeed in wide use within secret societies as alleged, but their very secrecy prevents the verifiability that is a requirement of Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dan T. Stifle 13:49, 6 December 2005 (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.