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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bull's Blood Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Not enough sources to make it worthy of being separate from Rutgers CynofGavuf 09:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rutgers_University_student_organizations. Warrah (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if (and only if) adequately sourced by the closing date of this discussion. Otherwise, delete. bd2412 T 03:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy Has no sourcing for any of the claims. If sources can be found, it counld be considered for inclusion as a section in Rutgers. Suggest usefying, then editor(s) can copy material, if sourced, into Rutgers. --SPhilbrickT 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No substantiation or reliable sources offered, nor even indication of widespread or popular speculation. Seems as non-notable as it is unverifiable. - Vianello (Talk) 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has this turned up again? This was an article a couple of years ago, but was merged/deleted and became a redirect to the Rutgers page, from which all mention seems to have gone. The previous page had sources, and made it clear the existence of the society was questionable. I think there should be an article at this title, to air the discussion/rumour/controversy about it, but I think it would be far better to delete the current text and re-instate the previous one, which was better. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2010 (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.