Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underhill Society of America

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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underhill Society of America

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

WP:NN genealogy / family club. NYT reference shows a family reunion. Other available references are obscure genealogy references/publications and primary sources published by the club itself. No reliable, in-depth coverage, makes the article fail WP:CORP.

Related AFDs:

Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been involved in some of the other AFDs, and only finding obits there. In this, we see one small blurb in the NYT about a family reunion. I don't see a clear case for notability. What worries me is the sheer volume of other redlinks in this article, with the remaining links being up for AFD. It seems to be a whole family tree that doesn't pass WP:N individually or as a whole. Tried to work with creator, no reply. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep based on two New York Times articles that talk about it, although not exactly by the same name. Borderline, perhaps, but I think the problem is availability of quick sources, not whether they exist. Needs someone to do some old fashioned library foot work. Also, many of the other concerns about notability of the members has been resolved. The article still needs better citations, but that is a matter of editing, not criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd think that a U.S. President saying this is a notable family and attending the dedication of an important monument of the forebear of the family who arrived in America in 1630 would be notable. In response to the comment above, several redlinks have been removed. As the primary contributor to this article, I am totally willing to make more changes. Placepromo (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited. Notability is determined individually on an article by article basis. This Society does not become notable just because Captain John Underhill is notable. The society itself must at the very least meet WP:GNG. Some of my ancestors have articles, but I wouldn't imagine that makes a society of their descendants notable. Yworo (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following Dennis Brown's lead on this, some of the members of the family / presidents of the club received recognition in the NYTimes. Most likely there are more historical sources to be found in libraries as Dennis suggests. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me how a Society which has produced numerous scholarly presentations, placed an impressive monument on the site of an ancestor, and remained in existence for over 100 years is not notable. How then are organizations like the Saint Nicholas Society in the City of New York the Daughters of the American Revolution notable, whereas this particular lineage society is not? The longer this goes on the greater feeling I have this particular organization is being singled out. Placepromo (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, read the general notability guideline. Notability is based on the amount of in-depth independent third-party material available to use a sources. It is not based on presentations, monuments, or length of existence. Meeting announcements in the New York Times are not in-depth coverage, they are meeting announcements. Everything else seems to be sourced to primary sources, which do not establish notability. It's being singled out based on your creation of lengthy articles on several clearly non-notable Underhills, Your user name, containing the word "promo" doesn't help either. It gives the impression that you might be a professional promoter paid to promote this organization on Wikipedia, which would violate our conflict of interest policy. Yworo (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been incredibly frustrating, and, not to mention, an enormous waste of time. Feel free to do whatever you want. I will pursue my interests elsewhere. This will be my last Wikipedia post, at least for a long, long while. Placepromo (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Exchange between Dennis Brown moved to talk page for User talk: placepromo as it pertained to multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placepromo (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The addition of new sources, including several articles from the New York Times, have demonstrated that both the organization and people who participated as part of it, had notability. This has been proven by the fact that ~~with the exception of William Wilson Underhill,~~ every President of the organization that has a Wikipedia page is well-sourced and other AFD requests have been overturned ~~(and, it should be noted the consensus for William is leaning toward Keep)~~ (Note: William William Underhill received a speedy keep). Substantial improvements have been made to the Underhill Society of America page since the original AFD tag. Hopefully in light of the changes that have been made, others will agree to Keep and/or to change previous Delete opinions to Keep. No matter where folks stand, the feedback and AFD process was helpful at improving this article and related articles. Now the task seems to be to move on and further improve this and other articles. Also, please note that previously I posted under Placepromo though am now posting under IDKremer based on advice and direction I received to change my username to one that was more suitable. IDKremer (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has suggestions of how to further improve this page, please post these on my User talk:IDKremer page. Thanks! IDKremer (talk) 14:30, 3 January 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.