Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Equity

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 - consensus that the initial concerns over notability have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Equity[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current article does not make any claims of notability. The organizations own history page suggests some notability, but it's hardly independent. Any independently verifiable references would do, here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My google scholar search (see [1]) turns up ten hits or so, but none seem sufficient (I can't actually look at the articles), as they seem to be merely mentioning the term in the context of lawsuits filed by the group (in some cases, the little snippet view looks like even the lawsuit is just part of a list of lawsuits, not an in-depth discussion). The very first reference, [2], does not seem to be about the lawsuit, but the tone of the snippet implies that it's part of a quotation from an interview of a research subject, not a real discussion of the group. Google News finds nothing for me. As such, I see no evidence that this group meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)see below[reply]

Keep. Gets 29,000 Google hits [3] and 9,400 GoogleBooks hits [4], plus a number of news hits in the areas of incorporation: [5]. The article just needs a citation or two. No reason at all to delete. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the pages listed in those Google searches, or have you just looked at the numbers? There are pages on the organisation's web site and on the web sites of other organisations that have a relationship to it, various unreliable sites (such as Wikipedia), obituaries of people including one-sentence mention of the fact that the person in question was a member of the Knights of Equity, a write-up in a newspaper of a press release giving the date of a picnic the Knights of Equity were planning to hold, a four sentence mention of the fact that they were planning to hold a convention... The mere existence of a large number of Google hits is no evidence at all of notability: we need to know that at least a few of those hits are to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Nothing I have seen suggests that that is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This organization's primary period of existence is pre-internet. Don't mistake the group's status in the present for its status in the past in terms of sourcing. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^ ^ What Carrite said. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable organization. Skimming through the sources Softlavender has linked to merely lists random mentions in other publications.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have indicated above, I have been unable to find any substantial coverage in suitable sources. In fact, there is not very much substantial coverage in any sources: mostly brief mentions, as Ryulong has said. The article does not make any significant claim of significance, so this could be regarded as suitable for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I see no harm in allowing this discussion to run its course. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Tracked by The Political Graveyard [6] includes 6 state legislators, with Caffrey (New York Assembly district), Fitzgerald (Michigan state senate), Fitzpatrick (Michigan house), Lamb (Pennsylvania house & senate), Lane (Michigan house), O'Connor (Michigan house), & Vaughan (Pennsylvania house). Dru of Id (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a Gilded Age & Progressive Era social benefits organization that has survived until the present much like a coelacanth. This should easily clear GNG, I'm guessing, I'll spend some time on this this morning... Carrite (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Pittsburgh has AN ARCHIVAL COLLECTION, preserved on microfilm, of "Records of Knights of Equity Court #9, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1938-1977." Clearly they believe the organization to be a topic worthy of academic study. Here's THE FINDING AID for the Pitt material, which includes a very brief (but substantive) history of the organization. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be evidence of a SECOND ARCHIVAL HOLDING, probably in Cleveland, although OCLC's listing doesn't provide further details, unfortunately. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually kind of interesting... This is SELF-SOURCED but indicates that the KoE had a women's auxiliary from 1954 called the Daughters of Erin, ALSO ARCHIVED at the University of Pittsburgh. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE on the website of phoenixmasonry.org/, placing the KoE in the tradition of Irish-Catholic fraternal organizations. The SAME SITE places the group chronologically with the Knights of Pythius and the Sons of Norway. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching out to the group and to a Masonic history museum for sourcing advice. I see that the group does have it's own self-published book, History of the Knights of Equity, but that's not going to add any traction here, being a self-publication. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is good — I found the second archive, which contains an online finding aid that has some substantial background info: WESTERN RESERVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY in Cleveland — a small collection, bulk dated 1895-1905. "History of Knights of Equity" is HERE. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. I had a sense that there would be something available out there in terms of sources, but it obviously wasn't easy.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Carrite; abundant thanks. Just a note, History of the Knights of Equity is not a book, it's a pamphlet. You won't find it in the Library of Congress or any used bookseller, not even bookfinder.com. Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I bumped into this one this afternoon: "Knights of Equity Plan Big Meeting," Pittsburgh Press, Aug. 1, 1908, pg. 7, col. 1-2. Most of the mainstream newspaper refs to the group are going to be of similar vintage (i.e. hard to locate in a Google search, but extant). Carrite (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another Pittsburgh Press piece, "Knights of Equity Open Convention," Sept. 16, 1948, about the group's 53rd annual convention, which included 500 delegates from 11 cities. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite's excellent factfinding. Deleting this page as nonnotable would amount to telling the University of Pittsburgh that it wrongly believes the Knights to be a worthy subject of scholarly inquiry. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And a sincere thank you to Carrite and Softlavender for there excellent work demonstrating the clear notability of this subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kind of moot at this point, but I received a nice email from Mark Tabbert of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial Association who suggested that the following sources include material on the Knights of Equity:

- Stevens, Albert Clark, ed. The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities: A Compilation of Existing Authentic Information . . . of More Than Six Hundred Secret Societies in the United States. New York: Hamilton Printing and Publishing Company, 1899. Republished in the 1930s
- Beito, David T. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890 -1967, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
- Ferguson, Charles W. Fifty Million Brothers: A Panorama of American Lodges and Clubs. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1937.
- Pruess, Arthur, comp. A Dictionary of Secret and Other Societies. St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1924; reprinted by Detroit, Mich.: The Gale Research Co., 1966.
- Schmidt, Alvin J. Fraternal Organizations. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980.

I'll insert these into the piece as a reading section in case somebody wants to expand the thing down the line. Thanks, everyone. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you again, and kudos for a job very well done here. Excellent work!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, and once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2012 (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.