Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Distinguished Gentlemen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The League of Distinguished Gentlemen

[edit]

Reason(s) I recommended this article for VfD This article smacks of vanity by college kids, and a group in existence for the last few months could hardly have gained significant notability to be mentioned herein. The mere existence of something does not make it notable. The description of the group presented in this article is vain, and sounds like college kids trying to justify their existence by another tried-and-true rendition of the "we're alienated" and "we yearn for the old British imperialist culture" rap.

For the sake of keeping this discussion regimented, I've taken the liberty to organize it as laid out below. —ExplorerCDT 19:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further proof of vanity. The entry creating the article on December 1st 2004 was a user named "Bhankey". Reading the article, one of the founders of this "club" was "B. Conrad Hankey." Coincidence. Methinks not. —ExplorerCDT 20:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Further proof, the IP addresses 70.182.38.207, 70.182.38.20, and 70.182.34.104 which are the sole editors after Bhankey but before the VfD notice are registered to Cox Communications (as per [1]) who has reallocated the IPs and provides internet services for use by Creighton University. [2] —ExplorerCDT 20:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes to Delete

  • Delete for reasons stated above. —ExplorerCDT 19:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for this statement alone: "Members of the League do not admit as such, as they in fact deny the very existence of such an organization." --Mceder 19:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No none seems to even be able to verify this exists. "Secretive vanity" is bound to fail, and, if it were to succeed, would still be vanity. -R. fiend 18:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverifiable, probably vanity. Geogre 21:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Articles about secret societies that assert that the society is truly secret, and do not cite any verifiable sources, are borderline speedy deletion candidates as patent nonsense. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Indrian 00:13, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant, brand new, possibly non-existant organization at a minor university. Gamaliel 08:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems absolutely unimportant.--Etaonish 18:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity - Cdc 21:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete clear vanity entry. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable vanity. Since it is brand new, none of the members of the organisation can have gone on to do anything significant yet (such as being elected President, thereby sparking media interest in their college secret society). Average Earthman 22:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, self promotion. I challenge you, sir, to justify this article by demonstrating (in a reasonable and gentlemanly manner), that anyone aside from your distinguished and Edwardian selves gives a flying fook about your poxy club, but do let us know when you've got a twittering prince or two in the bag. Wyss 00:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete'. --JuntungWu 03:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. And "...inurbane and cavalier provisos..." has to be the worst piece of pretentious tosh I've read in months. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as non-notable, vanity, &c. Dear God, though, how I laughed. This would have seemed mildly silly in the 1880s Home Counties, much less the US today... dashed colonials, always a bit behind. Nice to see them aping their betters, though, what? Shimgray 20:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's taking all my willpower not to add the word "secret" fifteen more times to that article. - Lifefeed 02:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: just some college kids doing pretty typical college-kid things. Iralith 17:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this society was doing something big like is often alleged with the Illuminati, the article's topic is unverifiable. Until then, this is most definitely not an encyclopedic topic. Johnleemk | Talk 17:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete:, vanity/nonsense article. Blorg 13:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cribcage 20:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --PJF (talk) 21:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, they're not the first or last to use the name. I just hope we don't wake up tomorrow to find they turned up in the college cafeteria with automatic weapons. --PoleyDee 23:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes to Keep

  • Keep - The group's notability will certainly grow. -- Crevaner 21:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And when they do grow, they can come back and rebuild the article. This isn't a chicken and egg question. Notability is established through a prerequisite, one that is here lacking. —ExplorerCDT 22:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I question the resolve with which their notability has been adequately researched. Simply deleting an article because you didn't care to examine the results of your Google search by no means constitutes a respectable degree of scholarship. Instead, it rather smacks of the alienation and snobbery this article stands charged with.- Postmodernscrew 07:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • User's first edit.
    • Comment: I did do a google search. Rather funny. It came back with a copious results saying Your search - "League of Distinguished Gentleman"+Creighton University - did not match any documents. See...[3] I think that's irrefutable proof of their indubitably awe-inspring notability. NOT! Your defence smacks of opening your mouth before you know what it is you're talking about.—ExplorerCDT 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Again, sir, I ask that you take note of your own methods. If you impugn this entry as lacking notability, the consequences may be more far-reaching than you currently reckon. A great number of the articles here draw their only notability from the other assorted online encyclopedias that mimic or carry verbatim the Wikipedia entry. Can a topic's (especially one of a "secretive" nature) legitimacy really be established by the presence of multiple online entries, each one the mirror of the other? Leave this entry here long enough to be copied and entered into other encyclopedias and it shall have your "notability." -- Postmodernscrew 19:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Retort That's a bunch of circular post hoc, ergo propter hoc nonsense, and further validation for how petty and insignificant your cause is. Save it because someday someone somewhere will think it's notable. I'd laugh if I didn't immediately recognize how dumb that vagary sounds. My methods are sound, backed up by Wikipedia's bureaucratic policies (policy and bureaucracy being something the Victorian gentlemen loved, by the way), there is no slippery slope to be reckoned with merely by taking out the trash. Nice try on appealing to emotion through the ominous threat of impending doom as a rhetorical flourish. I doubt deleting one insignificant article (vide supra) will lead to the four horsemen of the apocalypse ravaging the land. —ExplorerCDT 20:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Doesn't sound like anymore of a vanity project than any other "secret societies". If other college secret societies get their own postings then there is no reason why these guys shouldn't. As far as the '"we yearn for the old British imperialist culture" rap' goes, I wasn't aware that imitating Victorian England was a craze sweeping college campuses. Much of it may seem tongue-in-cheek, but it seems like there is some legitimate academic and social purpose within the organization.- Goaway110
    • User's first edit.
    • Comment: No, it's not a fad sweeping college campuses, but there just a few too many kids who think they're special just because they identify with Rudyard Kipling or yearn for the glory of Gordon's failed conquest of the Sudan. It's pathetic that one can ascribe the moniker "distinguished" to themselves, not by committing worthy deeds in the words of Thomas Carlyle, but because of some fetishistic interest in half-assed mimicry of ill-perceived notions of Victorian gentlemanry. I don't even know CBE's today who think themselves "distinguished" because they get pin from QEII that is nothing more than a obsolete throw-back from the Victorian era. Oh, the vanity. —ExplorerCDT 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Kipling. Hmm. Hast thou given a peacock goodly wings / To please his foolishness? [4] It's all there, sooner or later... (I doubt they identify with RK, at least not consistently or with any consideration; he always esteemed those who did, not talked - the soldiers, the engineers, the sailors, the clerks... one of his more endearing features) Shimgray 21:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Kipling? Sudan? Carlyle? It sounds like you want to be a part of this group. Jealous?Goaway110
      • Your ideas intrigue me. Please subscribe me to your newsletter. Gamaliel 21:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, Goaway110, I must decline however do know that I appreciate the offer. First, I doubt I'd get along with the Jesuit mentality of such an esteemed institution of learning like Creighton. Secondly, I've never been partial to Omaha. Thirdly, an educated man does not associate with mere dilletantes. Lastly, and moreover, I do not deign to enjoy acquaintanceship with members of the lower classes, especially those who cling to such a futile, deluded hope as social promotion—not that social promotion is achieved by wishing it so, relying on a pair of ruby slippers and a mantra of "There's no place like home." Wait, sorry, that was in Kansas...quite a few steps up from lowly Omaha. —ExplorerCDT 22:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sidenote: Dilettante...one that dabbles in the realm of knowledge. Rather telling, isn't it, that you misspelled the word? -- Postmodernscrew 0:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Retort: The detriment of not having spellcheck attached to this edit function. Mind you, it also means superficial and amateurish which in addition to the dabbling denotation is concisely appropriate. However, tomorrow, I'll be the wiser and probably will not spell the word incorrectly again, but in that same tomorrow you'll still be a dilettante, your little club still insignificant, and this article another day away from being deleted. —ExplorerCDT 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment - Yeats couldn't spell for toffee, but he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. An ability to demonstrate pedantic snobbery does not make someone notable (or demonstrate that they are not a dilettante), otherwise we would have to write an article for everyone who writes a letter to the Daily Telegraph. Average Earthman 16:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Touche. I can spell, just I'm editorially lazy sometimes. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 16:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -It is with great humeur d'amusant that I regard this argument. Vanity seems to play a great deal in a particular individual's quest to have this article removed. It is hardly a surprise that this article would draw the attentions of just such an individual who's motives are quite a bit more questionable than the mission of any college secret society, namely the stated mission of the aforementiontioned League. I vote for the retention of this article. -- Erostratus 21:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • NOTE: User's only edit as of this response [5],—ExplorerCDT 23:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Retort: Not everyone's against you and your petty, pseudo-sophisticated League, Erostratus. My motives not even close to being questionable and secretive, unlike what you ascribe. Simply, when doing a massive edit on the Secret societies page (where your precious League was listed), I sought to categorize the societies so people knew what they were clicking (Student groups, fraternal orgs, etc.). Don't believe me? Read the article's talk page, I gave about two weeks warning. If you notice, I removed quite a lot of insignifant societies from the list (mostly redlinks), and yours was merely one with dubious claims with an article I sought to see the consensus of the VfD request before I removed from the list. I'd like to see how many more of your drinking buddies will jump on here to give a one-time-edit (and thus uncounted) Keep. Enjoy. —ExplorerCDT 23:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xtreme! 01:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that this user is most likely a sock, as his first edit was about 2 hours before this one and has made several single-word VfD votes within the span of a couple minutes. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 01:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abstain


Comments

  • User Goaway110, while voting to "keep," has recently made two edits to the article, e.g. reducing it to a single sentence:
The League of Distinguished Gentlemen does not exist.

Since he presents no evidence for this (e.g. if he knows its a hoax because he knows who perpetrated it), I think this probably counts as vandalism. It certainly doesn't help with the VfD process. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page now protected

Due to repeated recent edits which I regard as vandalism, by Goaway110, User:70.182.37.148 and User:70.182.35.191, the page has been protected. I intend to keep it protected for the duration of VfD discussion. Each incident consists of replacing the entire page contents except for the VfD notice with either

The League of Distinguished Gentlemen does not exist.

or, in one case,

The League of Distinguished Gentlemen does not exist. There is no such organization.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_League_of_Distinguished_Gentlemen&oldid=1138846310"