Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René Guyon 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 keep per discussion below. Regardless of whether or not the group existed, the availability of sources indicated below satisfies the
René Guyon Society
- René Guyon Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
As near as I can determine, the René Guyon Society is an urban legend that never actually existed. It appears that the LAPD was correct when it determined that it was the fever dream of one person, Jonathan Evan Edwards. The citation indicating 5,000 members is not a direct link to the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations, but to some web page that says that the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations credits it with 5,000 members. Whether the error is at the citing web page or actually in the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations, I don't know, but error it is; no reasonable person can believe that this entity, if it did exist, had anything like 5,000 members. How could it, and leave no footprint? How many entities with 5,000 members have a headquarters the location of which no one can exactly determine? Edwards claimed 5,000 members, and it looks like someone somewhere took him at face value.
Now, "René Guyon Society" generates a passel of Google hits, it is true. But all of these appear to actually reference the rumor of the René Guyon Society, passing on the shocking (or, to some, thrilling) legend of the society's existance -- always which seem to have no basis, except the basis common to urban legends of having heard about it "somewhere". Nowhere is there any hard information, because such information, I believe, does not exist. Possibly there should be an article about the René Guyon Society as a meme/rumor/legend, documenting how one person's scam became accepted as real. But that is not this article, and if such an article is to be written it would be better to start over from scratch. Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs better sources, which abound in Google Books, Google News Archive, and even Google Scholar. Whether it existed as purported or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it was notable, as it surely was. The number of mentions (credulous or not) in US Congressional hearings is all but sufficient by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it existed or not is relevant for the form the article will take. Certainly the story of how a non-existent entity came to be mentioned in Congressional testimony and spread all over the web is interesting, and perhaps an example of moral panic. But this article is not that story. It is a false and misleading article, completely wrong and not verified, and needs to be destroyed and perhaps someday started over from scratch. Generally we don't flat-out delete articles on entities that are or might be notable, but in this case we should make an exception. And no the article can't be "fixed", it needs to be an entirely different article. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't we simply modify this article? The current version wouldn't be that hard to modify simply add a few "according to X" comments and include the citations that say it in fact not real. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no X. There simply are no reliable sources about this entity, it appears. Including any reliable sources that prove that it didn't exist. If and when someone can dig them up the article could be recreated. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand, you made a claim above about the LAPD determining that this didn't exist. Do you have that source? Isn't that presumably a relevant RS? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the organization did not exist, and that the LAPD also believed this. But I can't prove it; I don't have a reliable source, just hearsay. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want us to delete an article that RS sources say existed but you have hearsay as not existing? That's a bit hard to take seriously. If you want to show that this didn't exist you should find a journalist willing to report on its non-existence (and presumably present whatever evidence you have for that to them). But if the non-existence isn't reliably sourced we can't do anything, and we certainly can't delete the article based on that anymore than I'd call for the deletion of George Washington even if you convinced me that his existence was a complete hoax. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are no reliable sources that say it existed. Herostratus (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want us to delete an article that RS sources say existed but you have hearsay as not existing? That's a bit hard to take seriously. If you want to show that this didn't exist you should find a journalist willing to report on its non-existence (and presumably present whatever evidence you have for that to them). But if the non-existence isn't reliably sourced we can't do anything, and we certainly can't delete the article based on that anymore than I'd call for the deletion of George Washington even if you convinced me that his existence was a complete hoax. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the organization did not exist, and that the LAPD also believed this. But I can't prove it; I don't have a reliable source, just hearsay. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand, you made a claim above about the LAPD determining that this didn't exist. Do you have that source? Isn't that presumably a relevant RS? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no X. There simply are no reliable sources about this entity, it appears. Including any reliable sources that prove that it didn't exist. If and when someone can dig them up the article could be recreated. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't we simply modify this article? The current version wouldn't be that hard to modify simply add a few "according to X" comments and include the citations that say it in fact not real. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it existed or not is relevant for the form the article will take. Certainly the story of how a non-existent entity came to be mentioned in Congressional testimony and spread all over the web is interesting, and perhaps an example of moral panic. But this article is not that story. It is a false and misleading article, completely wrong and not verified, and needs to be destroyed and perhaps someday started over from scratch. Generally we don't flat-out delete articles on entities that are or might be notable, but in this case we should make an exception. And no the article can't be "fixed", it needs to be an entirely different article. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about moving it in time-honoured style to Allegations of Rene Guyon Society? Relata refero (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the necessary modifications of the article in this case would be so great that it might be best to start over.21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Several sources point to this organization's either existing or having existed, but, even if it didn't exist, its supposed existence has been reported on in multiple fora. Also, hearsay about what the LAPD thinks about the likelihood of the group's existence doesn't seem particularly probative. --SSBohio 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This subject seems notable whether or not it exists or existed, as it has been reported on by reliable sources. However in an article on such a controversial subject we need to take special care about reliable sourcing. I have removed references to self-published sources from the article, and removed information which isn't sourced from the remaining references, in particular information about a named, probably living, person which is a clear breach of ]
- 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.