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 DELETE, although I observe some claimed references at the end. The editor who examined at least one of them found it to be wholly lacking, however. -Splashtalk 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hypermodernity Club[edit]

Self-styled "philosophy discussion group/academic alliance/secret-society". 200 google hits, and that includes hits for a band of the same name; I can't tell if they're related, but if they're not, they're both even less notable. This page appears to have some of their wicked-deep writings; see also the correspondence course ad at [1]. Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. bikeable (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the Talk page to this AfD:

Unfortunately, some of your patrols seem to be ignorant college students with little knowledge of the subjects they are policing, thus making this entire "wikiproject" absurd by design. Though I find all of this amusing, I have no desire to engage in a long discussion as to the merits of my entry, I merely posted it on a whim after finding its entry strangely absent from your database. I am a university professor and not only am I aware of the club, I attended the hypermodern lecture series with the esteemed Mr. Baudrillard himself at my institution. The presence of the club has been written up in several books, the authenticity of which I do not doubt, and if that is insufficient I will leave the "google-ing" to you.

I wish wikipedia the best into the future and by all means do what you wish with my entry.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs) bikeable (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Will Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.141.164 (talk • contribs)
  • You mean, you'd never heard of it until you took the deletion tag off the page? Fair enough. In any case, Paulambery01 says it's been "written up in several books", so now we just need a reference and we'll be satisfied. Otherwise, how could we tell whether it was made up or not? bikeable (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulambery01 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery[reply]

Paulambery01 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery[reply]


As a Brooklynite, I am amused to find wikipedia entrys for “Rubulad,” a debaucherous party that occurs every few months on the Northside, and the entry for “East Williamsburg Industrial Park,” which is where I live, described condescendingly in its sophomoric entry, and to LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution which could be assailed by number of history professors. Being an academic myself, I am curious to understand why references to both Jean Baudrillard and Martin Heidegger cannot philosophically legitimize an “entry” into your ghoulish dream of information consolidation. Also, I would like to know how many moderators and even "philosophical grad students" are not only versed in Attic and Homeric Greek, but are intimate with those earliest of thinkers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Anaximenes, that forcefully mark the inception of "Western thinking."

You allow entire entries which are devoted to “reptoid conspiracies,” which allege that the ruling global elite are actually shape-shifting reptilian creatures who sprung from an ancient genetic experiment, perpetrated by a dim race of ET visitors. The entry for this is quite exhaustive, preposterous, and downright insulting to those of us who do, in fact, descend from the reptoid bloodline, and do not have some insidious dream to enslave humanity through domestic internment camps, internet regulation, and RFID bio-metric ID cards. Please, show some discretion, and permit these people who, like bees flung from their hive, and deep into the mists of fragrant gardens, seek only to pollinate and prolong their sweet, succulent existence.

Most respectfully yours,

Professor J.P.W. Cragglestocker

While I believe it is irrelevant to dicker over the fine points of this entry. I cannot help but remark when the pot calls the kettle black. Just the other day, I was reading how political yes-men had been consistently ammending and omitting submited data for Wikipedia entries on various politicians. What we have here is a fine object lesson in information theory. Wikipedia itself represents the hypermodern attitude toward information - vis a vis the flux, eternal expansion and user generation that categorize the internet as a whole. If the mavens of Wikipedia believe themselves to be one iota holier than the myspace whores, with regard to self-promotion by users, they have a tragic lack of self-insight. The roots of the Wiki project and the internet itself are in a mistrust of absolute truth, cancerous generation and alternative history, which come together like Voltron to form the god Narrative. If ya don't know your roots, then you got no culture. And I'll shed no tears when big Fox Murdoch separates your wheat from its chaff.

sincerely, L. O'Hara

Comment. My sympathies to the Admin who closes this one out. Slowmover 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I have just confirmed gone out of my way to verify that Davidson and Northwestern, as I stated in the initial entry, have *confirmed* chapters for the Hypermodernity Club. Please call them yourselves if you must verify this even further. Moreover, a colleague of mine, the head of philosophy at Tulane university, served as US chapter President for 2004, thus confirming that the group is "notable". As far as anyone with any sort of intellectual acumen is concerned, Now the burden of proof as to the club's worthiness for inclusion into the Wikipedia database falls on the above moderators (students) who so rashly dismissed it.

Edit: Paulambery01 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery[reply]

Great news. Now we just need some way to verify that, and we'll be all set. bikeable (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you, I've already done too much. If your agenda is to prevent this organization from inclusion into your hairbrained database, then so be it. Paulambery01 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery[reply]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/maison/events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs)

Baudrillard, Jean. Le complot de l'art suivi de Entrevues à propos du complot de l'art. Sens & Tonka. Paris, 1999, pgs. 45, 62, Paperback

Baudrillard, Jean. The End of the Millennium or the Countdown. Theory, Culture & Society. February 1998, pp. 1-9

Finally, I echo ZornArmand's educated understanding of what is at play here.

Paulambery01 19:48, 20 March 2006 (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.
More