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. Anas ^talk? 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent

The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Apparently a hoax. There are zero references on Google to "The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent" that do not come from this article. The ebay link goes to [1], which doesn't seem to have any bearing on this supposed society. Nothing for "Golden Books of Venetian Nobility" except another Wikipedia article written by the same author, which I have put the "hoax" tag on. I asked if the other two references mentioned this society and was told that they did, but as they're not available for me to peruse, based on the other supposed references, I must assume bad faith. This is a continuation of an edit war at List of collegiate secret societies, in which multiple anonymous editors don't like the idea of being required to produce sources. Corvus cornix 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, the 'references' provided here do not add up. Unless the authors of the page can provide reliable sources for verification, the article should be considered a hoax and deleted. Terraxos 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless specific references that can be checked (including page numbers and all those other irritating minutiae) are provided, this fails WP:V big time. And I think it's a hoax too. Deor 00:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a society at Purdue called Skull & Crescent.[2]. THAT society is also referenced on the Theta Nu Epsilon webpage. So, there is such a society. This rambling nonsense produced by a small number of individuals makes no sense and is wholly unverifiable. However, I think Corvus cornix's presumptions and continual contentiousness also detracts from getting anything constructive done in these articles. (I would not have brought this up, except that he chose to make broadcast accuastions above.)129.133.124.199 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhuh. The links that are provided are so useful for proving notability. As is the name "Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent". Corvus cornix 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Rackabello 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found further evidence related to what is becoming increasingly obvious as a hoax.

The same user who wrote the Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent Article, and created The Pugilist Club article, is also meddling with the Barbaro Family page. I found numerous inconsistencies with that SOSC (Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent) article which he attempted to explain away citing unnamed sources, or sources only he claims to have access to. He has edited my personal comments on the discussion page of that article in what appears to me to be an attempt to cover his mistakes. In the discussion page of his SOSC article he has referenced pugilism, Amelia Earhart, the Wright Brothers, and a letter by Daniel Russell to a Bro. Chase, a letter which is also cited in his article on the alleged Skull and Crescent Order as being one of their prized artifacts. The citing of this letter was the final straw for me. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I found that letter quite amazingly and coincidentally while researching Theta Nu Epsilon on ebay of all places, it became clear that the article on the Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent was founded mainly, if not wholly, on this individual's fantasies. That letter can still be found on ebay by putting 200101453405, the item number into the ebay search. When I casually confronted the author of the Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent wikipedia article with this, he initially presented a fantastic notion that perhaps the SOSC members were engaging in the ruse of selling their sacred artifacts to themselves in order to make them look worthless. When I gave the ebay item number, then he quite suddenly and conveniently recalled that oh yes, he just remembered that in his unavailable source it says they reprinted copies of this letter for their members and that this must be one of those ultra rare reprints. The buyer (obviously the author of the Skull and Crescent article, The Pugilist Club, and the bastardizer of the Barbaro Family page) left positive feedback for it. Any dullard can tell an original hand written letter from a copy, if it were a copy negative feedback would have been left. Now there is a link to the Ebay item cited as a source on the SOSC article. Upon looking into the publicly available links to items this same person purchased on the online auction site, I found many other fraternity related items as well as Amelia Earhart, Wright Brothers, and pugilism posters! Now I find the author's wikipedia alias is Tiki-Two. Well, that name is almost exactly what the ebay user who purchased this masonic letter uses!

I do not know what his motives are, but it seems he is building a hoax on wikipedia, probably as a teenager considering his use of vulgarity elsewhere, though perhaps as a member of a fraternity. It is also possible that he is building a collection of items that he intends to present and cite in articles as important artifacts of secret societies. As a relative outsider to wikipedia, I don't know what course to take, and really don't have the time to find out. I mainly enjoy reading wikipedia articles, not engaging in what to me is vain online argumentation.

I agree--There is no record anywhere else online of a Vitus Sebastian Barbaro that I can find. There is no record anywhere else online of The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent either. There is no record of a "Pugilist Club" aka "Fight Club" at Purdue anywhere else online.

We can almost certainly expect more hoaxes from this individual.

This won't be the only place I send the above information. Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com July 5, 20:24 PST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.83.249.234 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 July 2007.

• • "probably as a teenager considering his use of vulgarity elsewhere, though perhaps as a member of a fraternity" or he could just be a loony.

• Delete - fails WP:V, and appears to be a hoax. --Haemo 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost certainly a hoax, but that doesn't matter: even if it's "true" (and let's face it, it ain't), it's unverifiable by encyclopedic standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One more thing regarding the ebay item linked to in the SOSC article and above--The seller states plainly that the "Letter is written to Horace Chase" while the SOSC hoaxer says it was written to Salomon P Chase. Is there not a single thing this poor hoaxer posts that isn't easily verified as made up?

Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com --76.83.249.234 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax and/or unverifiable, and I hope similar attention can be paid to other related articles (and the list), which are proving to be potential hoax/vandal magnets. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haemo and Starblind. this is a hoax and thus not verifiable. --Aude (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Clear hoax. Wright brothers & Amelia Earhart as teachers? Student secret society five years before classes began? Main editor and his army of IPs has history of hoaxing. Edward321 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The society might be real, but if it is, I doubt it's notable; and most of what's in the article is probably a hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (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.