Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is an overwhelming majority to delete mostly citing policy based reasons around a lack of substantial reliable secondary sourcing. The keep side relies mostly on admitedly marginal sources and/or assertion and I have excluded the SPA votes that have been placed on the talk page. I have purposely not taken into account delete votes based on how poor this article is because, as Col Warden rightly states, AFD isn't for clean up. That said the clear consensus is that this doesn't pass the bar and my personal advice to any editors seeking to rescue this is to start fresh and concentrate purely on material from reliable sources in recreating a userspace draft. I am happy to review the close in the context a such a draft at any time. Spartaz Humbug! 11:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irving Literary Society[edit]

The Irving Literary 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)

NOTE TO NEW WIKIPEDIA EDITORS Large numbers of new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules have made excessive numbers of edits to this discussion, many of which are unhelpful, and this makes it difficult for the reviewing administrator to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted. I've moved those editors' comments to the discussion talk page, in order to prevent further disruption. However, if you have useful contributions to make (for example, if you've discovered reliable sources that would shed light on the discussion), please feel free to make those contributions on the talk page. I will monitor the talk page, and move comments that include useful new information to this page- I also encourage the closing admin to review the conversation there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Most of the article's information has no sources. Many claims in the article are not supported, especially that it is the oldest Cornell Student Organization. Information that is sourced appears to be copied from unverifiable sources and much appears to be lifted from other copyrighted material. Cornell1890 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


DELETE - This article is largely fictional history and self-promotion. There are no legitimate citations from after 1900. The article is riddled with factual errors. (The Student Assembly didn't even exist until 1981. There was no "constitutional collapse" in 1969, because the student government had voted itself out of existence the previous year. The formation of the IFC was not in contrast to student government. Etc.) While Phi Kappa Psi may privately preserve elements of the early literary society, it cannot be said that it truly still exists or holds influence on campus, and it is certainly not a separate entity from the fraternity. Cornell2010 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • DELETE - I usually lean toward inclusion, but the article is absolutely nonsensical. Consider this outtake, grabbed at random:

    To the stoical looker-on, his occasional eulogistic paroxysms would seem enough to make dame Nature blush at so much flattery, but she has met vis a vis many a “lover at first sight,” ere this, and is used to compliments. The views of the author are given frankly and apparently from the heart, just as a real amateur would express himself on the spot, while to the more conservative it would doubtless seem that there were too many superlative degrees among his adjectives.

    I don't even know what I'm looking at!     —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the above because overly-dense and florid style isn't a valid reason in itself to delete an article. I didn't realize that the text I plucked out was a quotation from a primary source, as it was not formatted as such at the time. The article- assuming it were to be kept- would clearly require a lot of cleanup, but that's how Wikipedia works. I still lean toward deletion, but I haven't reviewed enough sources to be qualified to make a strong statement either way. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is largely fictional and very manipulative of the facts. I cannot support it. There are no legitimate sources from 1900 onward. The group of promoters (Cmagha and BRB72 [sock puppet?][net ID much?]) speak of the existence in the present tense, as if the group were still active on campus today. I fear that this is very self promoting and trying to lend credibility to a "newly" formed student group that is attempting to ride the coattails of a long dead organization. Wikipedia is not the place. Cornell1890 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - The citations are farcical, and the existence of this group can't be independently verified. NYCRuss ☎ 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Summary as of 30 April, 04:05[edit]

This page has been massively botched with legions of redundantly-marked opinions. I've waded through it as best I can.

In support of keeping the article:

  1. Cmagha (talk · contribs)— Cmagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  2. Brb72 (talk · contribs) — Brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  3. 128.84.144.214 (talk · contribs)— 128.84.144.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  4. Hadem (talk · contribs)— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In support of deletion:

  1. Cornell1890 (talk · contribs)
  2. Cornell2010 (talk · contribs)
  3. Notyourbroom (talk · contribs)
  4. NYCRuss (talk · contribs)
  5. Voceditenore (talk · contribs)

All of the individuals in support of keeping the article have single-purpose accounts, as a cursory examination of their editing histories will reveal. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Updated —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thank you to Notyourbroom for summarizing the mess these SPAs have made of this discussion. I should also point out that some of these accounts may be the same person. Note here where Tea36 (talk · contribs) deletes the signature of 128.84.144.214 (talk · contribs) and here where Brb72 (talk · contribs) inappropriately comments on Cornell1890's user page instead of his talk page and then Hadem (talk · contribs) comes back to make minor copyedits to it two hours later. And why does Cmagha (talk · contribs) refer to him/herself in the third person here? Will the "pro-keepers" (and I use the plural advisedly) please read this for guidance on how to participate constructively at an AfD. Most importantly, stop prefacing every comment with "keep" (you say it only once). Stop adding unsigned comments, and stop editing other users' comments. If some of you are actually the same person attempting to "vote-stack", continuing to edit this way is very likely to end you up here and possibly lead to you being blocked. Cut it out please. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (updated by Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Neutral based on notability concerns from looking at the sources cited and excerpts quoted, as well as looking around somewhat myself.
1. As an independent society, it has no documented notability outside Cornell and even within Cornell has no current relevance (and very little past relevance), except to the members of the local chapter of a national fraternity. Note this sole mention of the Irving Literary Society on page XLVIII of the 1916 edition of A Story Historical of Cornell University
Early Literary and Debating Societies
In the early days the undergraduates formed the Philalathean, Irving, Adelphi and Curtis Literary Societies. They met soon afterwards in the room in Morrill Hall, where the Registrar's office is now. These societies developed oratory and debate, but did not greatly promote social life, and so, as at other colleges, they were finally abandoned.
2. Notability is not inherited. It may have had members who later became notable, but unless you can demonstrate that their membership in this society was a significant aspect of their lives and future careers, their membership does not attest to the society's notability.
3. There were many Irving Literary Societies in American colleges, schools and towns in the 19th century, some of which appear to have been far more notable than this one, and some of which are still around as independent entities. See [1] and [2]. If nothing else this article's current name is completely misleading.
4. A very small amount of the material here could be appropriately added to an article on Cornell's history, the article on the parent fraternity, the Washington Irving article, or even a new the article/list on American college literary societies. But it needs to be drastically pruned and what's left needs serious copy editing - the style is bizarre and very "in universe", and I'm not talking about the 19th century quotes.
– Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Its one claim to fame, being "the oldest literary society at Cornell", does not appear to be true. In the list at College literary societies, it is listed as being founded in 1868, while Cornell's Amphictyon Society is listed as 1853 and the Adelphian Society as 1858. All dates are sourced from: Seeley, I. C., Manual of College Literary Societies with Statistical Table, (Kalamazoo: Chaplin & Ihling Bro's Book and Job Printers, 1871), pgs. 19-135. This same source is used in this article from the Library Quarterly. As both the latter pre-date the founding of Cornell, it's possible they had already existed and were incorporated into the University (or the source could be wrong), but it's still not clear how the Irving's claim to be the oldest is adequately supported.
– Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: mystery solved. The latter two were at Cornell College in Iowa and wrongly linked in College literary societies to Cornell University. However, according to Cornell University, A History (1905) p. 4 (Section 2. Literary and Debating Societies), the Philalathean was the oldest, followed by the Irving: "The first society to be established, soon after the opening of the university, was the Philalathean, and soon afterwards, on October 22, 1868, the Irving."
- Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nom. Codf1977 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Was this article created for an end-of-semester project? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the information found at Voceeditnore--I consider his source a clearly RS. 19th century literary societies at major colleges ha as important a role in the college as the academic curriculum, and there can be--and in fact usually was--more than one of them. As Voceditenore, a careful editor, points out, there are many other such societies. But that is no reason to avoid covering this one, it's rather an argument that articles should be written on the others. That they eventually died out as the curriculum broadened is no reason not to include them--we cover historical topics also. Some of the other delete !votes as ignorant well as some of the !keeps represent very close to spa's, working only on very closely related topics. The problem here seems mainly a content dispute about the present-day importance of the society. Whether it has any present day importance at Cornell is irrelevant entirely to notability, as long as the article is written to indicate this properly. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. You make some good points. I might consider changing my mind.;-) However, I'm still not completely convinced that it sufficiently notable to merit an article on its own, although possibly feasible as an article on Cornell's literary societies in general. As you probably know, I try to rescue articles from AfD whenever I can, and I have to say that the nominator's rationale, is not something I would go along with. The fact that an article is dreadful, is not a reason to delete it. My comment about the other Irving Societies was mainly to the point that if kept, this article's title needs changing to something like The Irving Society (Cornell University). The current title is grossly misleading. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on this and see how the discussion progresses. I'm willing to be convinced. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG and per general precedent against articles on student clubs at a single school. Also per Voceditenore, who notes that many of the primary claims are outright fictitious or grossly misleading. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  • Delete as hoax. While some of the claims may be true, the amount of baloney encountered here means we will likely need to start from scratch. Brad 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the content but not necessarily as a separate article per the source found by Voceditenore and per the cogent arguments of DGG (there are many other such societies. But that is no reason to avoid covering this one, it's rather an argument that articles should be written on the others.) If there is a valid merge target, I would support merging instead of keeping this as a separate article. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete. The comments by Stifle, 4meter4, and other editors below convince me that because of the time it will take for an experienced editor to remove the inappropriate content (which is most of the article) and retain the small portions that can be verified by reliable sources (I read the article and was unable to find anything worthwhile, anything that wasn't original research), I prefer a close as "delete", rather than a close as "merge". Cunard (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to find verification on the societies existence at Cornell in Lee de Forest and the fatherhood of radio - by James A. Hijiya as shown here [3]. This does give credit that the organization was once consider to be notable. My understanding, with regards to Wikipedia guild lines with regards to notability, is that once a person - place - or thing are found to be notable, either in past or present context, they retain this notability. In other words, once notable always notable. Thanks.ShoesssS Talk 13:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ShoesssS: From some of the research I have done, I have found many different "Irving Literary Societies" and I am not sure that the link you supplied above is the one at Cornell University. For one thing, Lee de Forest has no connection to Cornell University or Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity which makes me doubt any connection to the group. I think we need to be careful in assuming that every "Irving Literary Society" is associated with this group. Cornell1890 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, that is where he meet his wife Harriot Blatch, who graduated Cornell with a civil engineering degree. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've changed my view above from delete to neutral, as I am still not convinced that this should be an independent article, but wouldn't be horrified at a "keep" outcome. Having said that I want to make some strong recommendations.
  1. It's clear from the style shifts that large parts of this article are copied from other sources, many of them in violation of copyright if published post-1923. I suspect they're from past alumni or fraternity publications. This has to go. I'm not talking about the clearly marked (but excessive) quotes. I'm talking about vast swathes of text presented as original writing. I and another editor have just finished deleting large chunks of pasted copyright material from 6 other articles created by the same editor.[4] (I don't think this was done in bad faith, just inexperience with editing on Wikipedia.)
  2. The article's title is misleading and needs to be changed to The Irving Society (Cornell University) for the reasons I outlined above
  3. The article should not be used as a coatrack for adding a large amount of material about the local chapter of Phi Kappa Psi and other tangential issues at Cornell. It needs to concentrate on the historic literary society itself with no more than a brief description of its current status, i.e. a non-notable sub-section of a fraternity chapter.
  4. Finally, some style issues that need to be ironed out if the article is kept. It is currently written not for the general reader but for alumni of a particular university (Cornell) and members of a particular fraternity there. Frat-speak needs to be removed, i.e. referring to people as "Brother Jones" or "Sister Smith", using "brother" rather than "member", etc.. Likewise, terms used in a way that applies specifically to American fraternity life, "tap", "pledge", etc. should also be avoided, or at the very least explained in a footnote or linked to an explanatory article elsewhere in WP. Ditto discussing aspects of campus life and buildings as if everyone already knows what you're talking about. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article for a general and international audience, not an alumni magazine article. The style needs to reflect this.

– Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reading through the discussion I accept that it has been shown that the society existed and that some people who later gained notability were members of it however this does not give notability to the society itself sufficient to pass WP:ORG. Nancy talk 07:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to affirm that my opinion remains the same despite later changes to the article. Nancy talk 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same reasoning as Nancy. I think this topic would be better covered in an article about Cornell's literary societies in general as Voceditenore suggested earlier. By itself I am not convinced sufficient notability has been established. 4meter4 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't sure I was going to take part in this, but I thought that another comment from someone who has been around a while should be made. It's obvious that the society existed, but that isn't sufficient for it to warrant an article. I've seen no evidence that the society itself passes WP:ORG. A short mention without all the bells and whistles in an article about Cornell's literary societies would be fine, so long as it is proportional to its significance. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' but edit sharply. The insistence on an over-detailed article about something notable but not terribly important is a reliable way to get it listed for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already said "keep" in your previous post. Shouldn't this one be a "comment"? Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck doubled vote. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry--the discussion got so long I forgot. I'm glad at least i was consistent . :) DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been considerable improvements to the article today, although it's still too long. But a new editor has found several sources in the Ithaca press (not simple obituaries), which might help towards establishing notability. He didn't link them in the article, so I'll post the links here. They're PDF files and sometimes take a longish time to load. [5], [6], [7], [8] (the last one has quite a lengthy article) - Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. It appears that there are insufficient independent sources to establish notability. If kept, the footnotes need to be severely cleaned up to specify what is a citation (and citations should use proper citation templates), what is a footnote in the traditional sense (providing tangential information), etc. My suggested closure for this AFD is "relist in a month", which relisted debate should also be semiprotected, bearing in mind that there's an awful lot of content which needs to be unwound and evaluated, but a paucity of citations. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per DGG. Some of the sources seem to be reliable and independent, so there may just be enough here to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - This discussion will benefit significantly from someone doing a no kidding serious summary of the discussion based on the current state of the article. Focus the summary on notability and sourcing, not the stuff that is just clean-up oriented. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion summary prior to relisting Early on there were some editors who wanted the article deleted primarily on content issues, some of which were not trivial, i.e. the suspected plagiarism. One editor opined that it was a hoax. However, the majority of the discussion has been about whether there are sufficient reliable sources available to establish its notability as an organization.

    The only press coverage of the Society (also called "Association" in some sources) has been in the Cornell student newspapers and the local Ithaca papers. The New York Times archives go back to this period, but have no coverage of it under either name. With the exception of this, this and possibly this from the Cornell Era (student paper) and this from The Ithacan (local paper) which discusses the Society's celebration of Washington Irving's birthday, the remaining coverage has been trivial (Society announcements, mentions of it in various obituaries of its members, etc.). In terms of books, there were brief mentions of the Society in conjunction with other literary societies at Cornell in its early days in A history of Cornell by Morris Bishop (1962); Cornell University, a history by Waterman Thomas Hewett, (1905) pp. 4-6; and A story historical of Cornell University by Murray Poole (1916). One other source offered which mentioned the Society was Lee de Forest and the fatherhood of radio by James A. Hijiya (1992) p.35. However this source was misinterpeted. If you read the actual page, it refers to the Irving Literary Society at de Forrest's prep school Mount Hermon.

    Three editors on this page felt this was sufficient to keep it as an independent article. Some felt it should be kept but only as a pruned down addition to other relevant articles, not on its own. Several more found the sources were not sufficient to establish notability per WP:ORG and felt it should deleted. Note that there are also 10 editors all opining "keep" whose comments were moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society by an administrator for reasons described here and at the top of this page. I encourage editors here to also look at those comments. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are really only one or two potentially reliable sources listed in all the references (most of which are actually footnotes). I can't check them, but as they are broader history books, I can't presume that they deal with this society in a significant way. The vast amount of the coverage seems to be very limited in scope (the student paper), not indicating any notability outside the Cornell campus. Even Voceditenore's coverage is trivial, and that's the local newspaper. One would expect more than a passing paragraph on remotely notable subjects ("The literary society is doing this, the mechanical society is doing that." "The literary society held a poorly attended meeting."). The one long-ish article is really devoted to a function put on by the society and doesn't cover the society itself in any detail. I don't see how notability has been established. It might have been the first society founded at Cornell, but there are contradictory sources there, at best. Based on what I see, this society seems to deserve passing mention in a larger article on Cornell student life/clubs/etc. » scoops “対談„ 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cornell University. Add a mention to Cornell University that provides basic coverage of this society and gives it prominence appropriate to its actual importance. The Irving Literary Society is not notable, so it should not have its own article, but it is appropriate to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, in view of the nature this AfD, I think a redirect is a superior outcome to a deletion because I wouldn't want someone searching for The Irving Literary Society to find a redlink that encourages them to write an article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) This is not a good solution. Many different organizations have operated under the name "The Irving Literary Society" (ILS), only one of which is associated with Cornell University. A redirect is therefore not a good idea as searchers may be looking for one of the other organizations using this name. Also, it would be difficult to add content on the ILS to the Cornell University article without raising concerns of WP:Undo. In my opinion deletion is the best option here. Notability still hasn't been adequately established. Further, many of the major contributors to this article most likely have a conflict of interest as they are Cornell students who are probably ILS members. They are also inexperienced with wikipedia's guidelines regarding verifiability, independent sources, neutrality, and referencing in general. Unless experienced wikipedians commit to overseeing the keeping/editing of this content (whether at this article or at another), I am not confident that we will end up with anything better. Further, so much weeding will need to be done with this content that a delete and merge will be a highly difficult close for the admin who ultimately rules on this AFD. I prefer deletion, but if the decision is to merge my suggestion to the closing admin is to userfy the content upon closure; preferably to an experienced wikipedian who is interested in tackling this content/over-seeing the merger. 4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned, redirection seems like a bad idea. There have been other Irving Literary Societies, including one (apparently) in Chicago that gets gNews archive hits and might actually be notable. Since there is no separate article on student life, if the relevant content of this article can't fit into History of Cornell University without giving undue weight (and I don't think it can), it probably doesn't belong here. » scoops “対談„ 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is evident that the topic is notable. AFD is not cleanup and so discussion of how the content ought to be edited belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Respectfully, I completely disagree that notability is evident in this case. Nobody has yet provided substantial enough sources to satisfy WP:N and the subject clearly fails WP:ORG. How you came to the conclusion you did is a mystery to me, especially since you didn't explain how you reached it.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with 4meter4 regarding notability. The organization barely existed for more than two decades. It was one of many very similar groups at Cornell and elsewhere. In the thorough A History of Cornell by Morris Bishop, it warrants no more than a brief paragraph about literary societies, concluding with "In the eighties the clubs disappeared, or turned into debating societies." Few, if any, other Cornell historians refer to it. The Irving was not even the first of the literary clubs at Cornell to accept women, instead following the example of the Curtis Literary Society. See [9], which also refers to the Irving ceasing to exist in 1887. Cornell2010 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brb72 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)brb72. Summary as of 8 May 2010; PM. Sourcing is complete, with secondaries in Hewett, Kammen and Bishop; though these authors have connections to Cornell University, the publishers are independent of the Cornell Board of Trustees, the party to the Residential Program connecting the Irving “to Cornell”. None of these secondaries are “Cornell publications”. As for the primaries, we have included many cites from the Cornell Era and some from the Ithacan and the Daily Democrat. Again, neither the Cornell Era, the Ithacan, nor the Daily Democrat are “Cornell publications”. Attempts to characterize them as such are a straining of the Wikipedia guidelines, especially given your previous predisposition to approval articles of this ilk, notably the Sphinx Head article which – do note – was approved AFTER a AfD petition against it, and its author, Cornell1890, has a screen name, coincidentally, which is the founding date of Sphinx Head. And given that experience, it is all the more odd that Cornell1890 initiated an AfD which could threatened the very page he or she created. Looking to Hewett, the notability lies in the Irving’s position on the tapping and admission of women. If you don’t find that notable in the 1870s, then perhaps the premise underlying Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. One would have thought gender discrimination was understood by this time. As for the argument that the Daily Democrat is not as authoritative as Sphinx Head’s New York Times, remember, the Times has had several nasty accuracy accusations in the past decade. Just because a paper is regional in audience does not mean that it does not convey notability; who is to say New York City is more notable-minded than Upstate New York? Here is the summary, and these are not votes, because Wikipedia does not count votes even though many of the season veterans appear to, well, count votes:[reply]

!vote summary

KEEP:

  • 1. Cmagha (talk · contribs), the author and member of the society [10] (secondary and primary sources exist; precedent exists and has been cited against the article, so it can be cited for the article; notable for the reasons I have culled from Cmagha’s posts and placed above);
  • 2. Brb72, the Dean of the society (arguments against are conclusory, lack valid premises and cannot be substantiated; yes, I am the Dean, but my vote counts as much as Cornell1890s in the unsuccessful AfD for Sphinx Head . . .)— brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;
  • 3. Tea36, the remorseful atoning accidental Sock Puppet: 12.84.144.214 (sourcing is correct; secondary sources do exist in Waterman, Kammen and Bishop)— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;
  • 4. Hadem (exists);— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 5. Gbendett (sourcing exists)— Gbendett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;
  • 6. Bigred4445 (meets wiki regs) — Bigred4445 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 7. Evie0124 (exists and meets wiki regs) — Evie0124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <;
  • 8. Dac0219 (sourcing sufficient) — Dac0219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;
  • 9. DDG (notable; sourcing sufficient);
    • Cunard (sourcing sufficient) (changed to delete see below)
  • 10. Shoesss (sourcing sufficient);
  • 11. Brandnew215 (sourcing sufficient)— Brandnew215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;
  • 12. Lebowski 666 (notable);
  • 13. Coldplay332 (notable) — Coldplay332 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;
  • 14. Alzarian (sourcing sufficient);
  • 15. Colonel Warden (notable);

  • DELETE:

  • 1. Cornell1890 (copyvio, sourcing insufficient);
  • 2. Cornell 2010 (doesn’t exist; sourcing insuff.);
  • 3. NYCRuss (sourcing; doesn’t exist);
  • 4. FisherQueen, an administrator (“Delete”, then retracted vote solely because of her position as an Administrator);
  • 5. Codf1977 (sourcing insuff.; as per nom.);
  • 6. Andrew Lenahan (sourcing insuff; precedent is against);
  • 7. Brad (it’s a hoax);
  • 8. 4meter4 (not notable)
  • 9. Nancy (not notable)
  • 10. Dougweller (not notable)
  • 11. Stifle (not notable)
  • 12. Scoop (not notable)

  • REDIRECT

    • 1. S Marshall (not notable enough for an individual article)

    • As rough consensus for deletion does not exist, the decision under the Wiki regs should be for retention.

    Brb72 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Brb72, Dean of the Irving Literary Society (and my vote should be ok, as Cornell1890 was a lead figure in the defense of Sphinx Head when it was subjected to a AfD).[reply]

    • Query What do you mean by: "the notability lies in the Irving’s position on the tapping and admission of women". Doesn't "tapping" refer to fraternities and similar college secret societies? Are you saying that membership in the ILS during 1870s was by "invitation only"? Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: At least two adminstrators and several other editors have asked you and Cmagha not to add these "vote counts" to the discussions. However, since you insist upon doing this, I have corrected the errors in this one and marked those editors who have made few or no other edits to Wikipedia apart from this deletion discussion. I am also collapsing the wall of text for readability. Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a borderline article with a very questionable AFD. The meatpuppets and sockpuppets and other behavior here lead me to leaning towards deletion. In reality, it's an article that can be improved and can stand on its own, despite shameful behavior of many on this discussion. tedder (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Brb72: Your facts are very wrong and I do not appreciate the slander. This page is getting to be ridiculous. Can we please have an editor make a final decision. The article is a disaster of unsourced and copyrighted material. Voceditenore has been very patient and straight forward, but I believe it is time to bring this mess to a close. Cornell1890 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A "decision" will be made following the proper procedure (7 days after the AFD was relisted, if it's clear). Until then, please read WP:TLDR and focus on the issues, not the editors. tedder (talk) 20:36, 13 May 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Irving_Literary_Society&oldid=1148113445"