Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hroswitha Club

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. Sandstein 21:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hroswitha Club[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The New York club the article is written about is not notable - it lacks the sort of coverage, even for a historical organization, that suggests notability with most coverage being passing, at best. There does appear to be a possibly notable club that operated out of the Princeton University Library with this name. Suggest redirect to either Princeton University Library with redirect with possibilities tag or to Hrotsvitha whom both of these clubs are named after. Best, (talk)Barkeep49 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect attribution: (talk)Barkeep49 I agree that this article is a stub, and expected that tag to apply automatically by bot in the crawl - if you can add that, please do so! Your assertion that the Club in NY is not notable and/or is formally affiliated with Princeton is incorrect. I concur that multiple citations can be added, including contemporary ones in press that can be accessed, and wikilinks to support notability. However thank you for mentioning it as now there is ephemera there to be linked to describing one of the club's visits and a membership roster. There is already an inline link to the Hrosvitha page which cites the Hroswitha Club having been named so under Contemporary References. This article expands on that reference. The citations to the Grolier Club indicate that there are Finding Aids available with a full description of notable members and history of the club. However since those are java based search responses, I used the base URL rather than a link that I suspected would not work, as some active links to records (see Grolier Club citation) go to a firewall page instead of the library search module. Will test and see, when I next add another citation. Thanks! noranoodle (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I did look at all of your sources. In addition I looked for other sourcing which is how I came across the Princeton group with the same name (and for which the sourcing seems stronger). If it's decided to redirect to Groiler Club that too makes sense though I think it's less noted than the Princeton group which is why I didn't originally suggest it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution to operating out of Princeton University Library is incorrect as is the attribution and suggestion that it is a subset to be redirected to the Grolier Club, for which the wikilink is used. Please see the full history and description of the Club: ″Meetings were scheduled three to four times a year during the winter months and held at the homes of members as well as at major libraries and private collections, mainly in the northeast.″ [1] which I will add to the See Also. Best, noranoodle (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this club is "not notable" is inaccurate. They met over 200 times and included, as the page indicates, major figures like Belle de Costa Greene and host of important women book collectors and bibliographers whose work we are still trying to preserve in other Wikipedia articles. Many of these women were part of the social elite in New York. It makes much more sense to say we need to expand this article than it need to be deleted. The Princeton citation is inaccurate, and rolling it into a subset of the Grolier Club without acknowledging its own history would be a disservice. It would be like citing the seven sisters universities as subsets to the male university system that spawned them. It is logical and okay to suggest this stub needs to be expanded. But to say that an elite women's historical society with a legacy of 200 meetings and 50 years is "not notable" is bizarre. Please read the sources again. This should absolutely not be deleted. Punkandpoetess (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This appears to be a club of considerable historic interest. It could no doubt be further expanded but should not be deleted as current sources are adequate.--Ipigott (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Ipigott. Seems to be an important, if niche, part of women's literary history; exactly the sort of thing you'd hope wikipedia would illuminate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a couple of references and I think this meets WP:CLUB, per others above. Tacyarg (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while I can see there's room for debate about the meaning of 'significant', it seems to me that the article meets the general notability criterion that the club has 'received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. I see no reason why we shouldn't give the article the benefit of the doubt. Alarichall (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN Keep. Two editors have improved sourcing during this discussion. Meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2019 (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.