Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxometrical society

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. clpo13_(talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxometrical society[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable University Society. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article on a joke university society that doesn't let Wikipedia readers in on the joke. Sidney John Baker did in 1953, but alas didn't have much to say other than explaining the joke, and that's about the extent to which this has been reliably documented. The sources at hand don't really say much, either. The Melbourne Argus is mostly going on about the Ern Malley hoax, for example. Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This point has now been address in the latest edits - further content and sources added. Hope this now helps satisfy? :) Skullbound (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More links to further independent sources have now been added.

Is it enough to have the nomination for deletion now removed? Skullbound (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is bombarded it with more passing mentions, So no, not enough. And it also raises questions about your own use of oxo shite. Sources you've provided simply do not directly support the text you have written. Are you looking for a degree yourself? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggest that this now be kept. Bduke (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with duffbeerforme, article is just peppered with trivial mentions. If someone could find just two or three good in-depth references, they could bulldoze this whole thing and rewrite an informative article. But a dozen or more passing mentions do not add up to information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with duffbeerforme. Where it is mentioned in reliable sources it is only mentioned in passing. No in depth coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 29 December 2023 (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.