Wiki143:Articles for deletion/S.U.C.K.S.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, after the obvious fumigation. -Splash^talk 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

S.U.C.K.S.

Non-verifiable "secret" society, probably hoax Cnwb 05:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a club that has been in existence for some time. I am personal friends of many members, and the society serves primarily as a social group, though their networking and significant influence is well known. There are various items of clothing that are available for members, who suprisingly for a secret society, are happy to wear them around the university. I think photographs of the apparel would certainly lend to this group's credibility.

Both Billy McMahon and Whitlam resided at St._Paul's_College,_Sydney and I'm sure some mention could be found of this in the media.

Unsigned comment posted by User:Maheshm, whose only contribution is this post.

• Delete. Ambi 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Secret socities are inherently unverifiable, or they wouldn't be secrets. --Angr/ 06:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not entirely true. Skull and Bones and the Illuminati have plenty of verifiable material on them although a lot of it is disputed. This however, appears to be vanity more than anything else. The Fanthom section kinda clinches it for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it just me or does a vanity page about a secret society not make much sense? — JIP | Talk 12:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless good, independently verifiable evidence of the facts in the article is provided prior to expiration of the AfD period. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be verified. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• I can at least verify that some of the claims of this article are true. Whilst the Skull and Bones links are probably bordering on impossible to prove and tenuous at best, I can attest that the Phantom, St Paul's College and University of Sydney links are irrefutible. Whilst I didn't attend St Paul's College, rather St Andrew's College, I do know that most of the things argued in this article are true. I also know that the society is not as secret as they make out. The Rock is an actual place next to a public thoroughfare within the grounds of the college. This article, whilst possibly a vanity piece, does have some truth. Perhaps we should give them an opportunity to introduce some more facts and remove some of the more tenuous claims. I know of at least one Australian CEO who was a President of this society. 138.130.23.157 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC). I don't care if the article gets dumped, but the facts, although I hate to admit it, are mostly true, barring what I mentioned previously about Skull and Bones
  • Personal testimony isn't what we mean by verifiability. We need to have an outside reference, preferably a print reference although a website will do, that is one which readers will acknowledge as reliable; the contents of which can be inspected; and which confirms the claims. A newspaper article would do, or a reference in a book, or a university's official website, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• D.E.L.E.T.E. Private Butcher 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was surprised to come across mention of SUCKS here as I wasn't certain of the existence of the organisation, however mere mention of the society here has verified many specific details that I had already heard elsewhere in the past about the body. While not connected to Sydney University in any way (I am, in fact, based in the United States), I first heard mention of the organisation a few years ago in conversation with an Australian stockbroker in his sixties. What I can tell you is that the society certainly is real, as regular contact with this financier and some of his associates subsequently confirmed. These are reputable individuals who are discreet and well-respected, and it is erroneous to suggest they'd be making this all up (and I can't see them as the kind of folks who'd be authoring a piece on Wiki!!). That said, I'll concede that you are always going to have trouble verifying the existence of something that, at least to my knowledge, has not received media coverage and attempts to remain under the radar. The page would, however, be of interest to members as well as those curious of the existence of such societies so I believe there is merit in allowing the page to be saved from deletion as, especially given the subject matter, it is likely to receive more expansive and in depth additions once it has become available for broader viewing. That something like the Men In Black conspiracy theory which is equally unverifiable as an event of fact appears on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_conspiracy_theory) provides equal justification for inclusion of information about something also speculative, that being S.U.C.K.S. I suggest it is given time to flourish.

Posted by User:64.223.226.185, who has contributed to the article.

• • "mere mention of the society here has verified many specific details that I had already heard elsewhere" - Mere mention doesn't verify anything, and neither does hearsay, even from people who aren't "the kind of folks who'd be authoring a piece on Wiki" (whatever that means). We can't have an encyclopedia built on rumour and speculation. Cnwb 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Let it remain a secret. Jwissick^(t)(c) 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Stick it on the WP:ARC thing... 68.39.174.238 03:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bankers in their 60's are unlikely to be spending time on the net working on a piece about their secret society... and none of what was on the site read like something written by well-educated bankers (i.e it was riddled with spelling errors until I cleaned it up). If I'm to make a fair assumption that they haven't written this, then someone else presumably also knows about this society. I raised the appearance of this page with my Australian contact this evening and while he sounded a little perturbed about the existence of the information he offered that the best he could do would be to contribute a photo of one of the group's items of clothing bearing the society's logo for page verification. Might this serve to satisfy some of those eager for more proof of the body's existence?

Unsigned comment by User:64.223.226.185, who has now voted twice

• Delete: creative, but it's no Skull and Bones.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, badly written, and not really encyclopaedic. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP- This is an organisation that is well known in Sydney especially among professional circles and the article would be both a valuable and interesting addition to a limited core of material on the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.165.112 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 October 2005
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Carbonite | Talk 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - probably a hoax. WW1 nominal roll has no Lawrence Bagg returning to Australia [1]. The second paragraph about Bagg does not ring true at all. --User:AYArktos | Talk 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Resoundingly non-notable. Slac speak up! 02:43, 5 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.