Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society

I oppose the deletion of the page, I find the contestation against the page unsubstantiated and outright false, and know the content of the page is legitamate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brb72 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 April 2010

KEEP - Sources are available online, through the Cornell Library (which has the first few years of the Cornell Era and many more of the Cornell Daily Sun. Cmagha can post an external link shortly to the current organizational documents of the Irving, which date to the mid to late 1960s. Items which individuals find contentious can be removed, if a postable cite is not available. Grounds for deletion should not be based on unavailability of a small set of citations, if it can be edited appropriately. Added some cites for you. Cmagha (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Cmagha (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Cmagha (talk) 1534, 28 April 2010 (UTC)— Cmagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - We've added citations; this is not self-promotion as it includes a fair amount of critique (such as the comparison with the Cornell Congress, etc.); Fixed the confusion of the Student Council with the Student Assembly. Voting a government out of existance, and the student discipline system it contained, a year before the student disciplinary system became the center of a national controversy can legitimately be decribed as a "crisis"; read the Sun articles on-line - the Mechanics remained caretakers through the crisis. The IFC was formed precisely because the Student Council was beginning to legislate on fraternity matters, see the Sun article. "Existance", wow, do we need to define extentialism? We'll post the text of the 1966 agreement, which references the Irving. Should be enough to confirm existance. Don't think the article claims that the Irving "holds influence" on the Hill today; nor is there any assertion that it is separate from the fraternity. Quite the contrary, one header states "Absorption". But the two are distinct, with different traditions and rules. By the way, who is the current Pharoah of Sphinx Head ? Cmagha (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC) — Cmagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - This is not an uncommon problem, when citing to 19th century text. They did not write for clarity, and it can lead to a lack of clarity in 21st century writing. The passage is from a book review published in the Cornell Era, see the lead, ". . . Chemistry Instructor Frank Wigglesworth Clarke (Harvard 1861)(1870)—took time from his heavy workload teaching students in AY 1868-1869 to write a guide to the geological features of the Ithaca valley, Views Around Ithaca. Brother Ryman wrote the review in the Cornell Era:" I can try to format to indent, etc. to set it apart. The quote was included because it showed writing activities among the members. Much of the material in the first decade describes debate, or forensic, activity. I was surprised to hit a Sphinx Head/Q&D nerve among the commentors; did not think the text and tone was all that disparaging of them.Cmagha (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)— Cmagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP I oppose the deletion of the page, I find the contestation against the page unsubstantiated and outright false, and know the content of the page is legitamate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brb72 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 April 2010— Brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP I hyperlinked a copy of CURP '66, dated May 1966, referencing the Irving Literary Society. So Cornell1890 has a authorative cite after 1900. Cmagha (talk) 18:64, 29 April 2010 (UTC). John Andrew Rea also referenced the current activities of the society in the Cornell Daily Sun's 50th Anniversary book of essays (1930). I can dig that out of the attic, if I still have it. But the philsophical debate about 'existence' is a little odd; Sphinx Head barely had a pulse between 1975 and 1990, yet no one denies that it existed. Got an e-mail the other day from someone who existed with me at the time in Sphinx Head, talking about our existance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmagha (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 April 2010— Cmagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - As the current Dean of the Irving Literary Society I can vouch that the Society still is in existence and that the history of the society is correctly described by the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brb72 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 April 2010— Brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP - I’ve reviewed the Wiki reasons for deletion, and find all but the following not germane to this proposed deletion:

•Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

•Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources;

•Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

The material is adequately footnoted; there is attribution to reliable sources; and I followed the sources and found them myself. With respect to the existence of the Irving, I walk by the banner dating its beginning, in the room used for its current functions, every day. That being said, I see absolutely no validity in any of the arguments for deletion. I am an active member of the Irving Literary Society and would be appalled to see Wikipedia delete a page of history - a page older than Cornell itself - due to the misinterpretation of self-promotion or the inability of readers to comprehend 19th century text (deletion's most compelling argument at this point).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.144.214 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 April 2010— 128.84.144.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP - External verification at http://www.phikappapsi-cornell.org/contact.asp; click on "Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966"; for NYCRuss, I will scan Walt Sheppard's history for you. Sheppard, as in the former President of the National. Your tone is very disrespectful. I am surprised at both the animus displayed by whay I am assuming are members of Sphinx Head and chapters of Phi Kappa Psi other than Cornell's. Not sure what nerve has been hit here, but there is still no basis for deletion. Cmagha (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Walter Lee Sheppard? The father or the son? Both were national presidents, and I personally knew Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr. (New York Alpha, '29), who was called "Lee", and not "Walt." How about citation #6? "No international Chapters are permitted" is simply not true. If you are a Phi Psi, then read your chapter's copy of the constitution and see for yourself. "...some Chapters admitted women in the radical ‘60s, etc,..." is also false. Basically, citation #6 needs its own citations. Not good. If you're at GAC this summer, I'll be happy to sit down and talk with you. NYCRuss ☎ 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- - I am having trouble understanding why anyone wants to delete this page. As a member of the Irving Literary Society, I can assure anyone who says contrary that it still exists and produces various publications including newsletters and alumni profiles. In addition the historic facts are correct and properly foot-noted. I can personally verify that the Society still exists and do not understand this notion that this page is a self-promotion for some organizing. Contact me if you have questions regarding the current existence of the society or want to dispute specific historical facts of the page. Just because you havent heard of the Society doesnt mean that it doesnt exist or doesnt have a history. The page meets none of the requirements necessary for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadem (talk • contribs) 02:39, 30 April 2010— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Yes we do have single purpose accounts because this has been the only issue rediculous enough to force us to act on behave of the Society we are members of. What is your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadem (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 April 2010— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Notyourbroom: I must say that was an impressive link to wikipedia's page about single purpose accounts. You are undoubtedly a master wikipedia editor with years of experience, but you still have much to learn. You see, at Wikipedia we are Here to build an encyclopedia, and we recognize the dangers of editors with single purpose accounts who wish only to self promote their organization and not work towards building an encyclopedia, but MORE IMPORTANTLY we understand that, "A user may have an interest in a topic that other users find trivial or contents that are difficult to comprehend. Diversity in interests helps us function as a comprehensive encyclopedia."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea36 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 April 2010— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Hadem: notyourbroom, I am truly sorry that we have greatly offended you in some way by simply putting up factual information about historic society at Cornell. I am sorry we are also not master editors, but I thought that is why wikipedia was so good, because all have the chance to share their knowledge with the world. The opposition is a little confusing. If you want to point to a farcical citation or fact please tell which one specifically is such and we can talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadem (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 April 2010— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KEEP- information in article is legitamate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbendett (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 April 2010 — Gbendett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I note that you misspell legitimate as "legitamate" just like Brb72 (talk · contribs) does here. Why do you think that is?Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Gbendett might have misspelled the word if he had read how I had spelled it and the spelling was stuck in his head --Brb72 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - from the looks of it this article follows all wikipedia requirements and meets none of the requirements necessary for deletion.--Bigred4445 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC) — Bigred4445 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP- The information on the page follows all Wikipedia guidelines. The Irving Literary Society is a "currently operating organization."--Evie0124 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) — Evie0124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note This comment was originally signed by (apparently on User:Evie0124's behalf by Brb72 [1]. Please don't do that. If you want to sign someone else's unsigned comment use Template:Unsigned. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Apologies to Voceditenore if this comment fails to meet your standards of posting.....While I agree that some 'pruning'/revising would do this page well, it has a wealth of information that is useful to those (however few) at Cornell who still hold interest in this organization. For any issues that one might have with specific contents of the article, I recommend that person to take it upon themselves to edit it to their satisfaction, but it would be a mistake to delete this entire account of the Society's history over small quibbles regarding founding dates, etc.--Dac0219 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)— Dac0219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. This is not a quibble about the writing style or a date. This article, with the sources it uses and the invalid claims it makes, does not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria and as such I feel it should be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Notability, and while you're at it, please read the notices at the top of this page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. the article does meet all the notability requirements. there is "significant coverage" if you look at all the resources, there is "reliable resouces" cited, there are many secondary "sources" cited, it excludes work written by the editor.--Brb72 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I'm afraid it doesn't meet the requirements. The only sources that have written about this society are internal to Cornell (student publications) and the fraternity that now operates it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Material fits the Wikipeadia criteria and is substantially footnoted. The Irving will continue to monitor comments and edit to meet various community concerns.— Brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)..— Brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Brb72, do you speak on behalf of the Irving Literary Society in some capacity? —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To finish up some empirical work for you, here are some other Irving members:

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3537/3/022_38.pdf Obituary of Judge Cornish, Nebraska Supreme Court, member of the Irving. Former member of the Nebraska State Legislature.

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3542/27/027_14.pdf Obituary of Frank Hagar, member of the Irving. Secondary education teacher in the Upper Middle West. During his life he wrote several articles and poems, his best known work being "The American Family," published in 1905.

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3540/7/025_34.pdf Obituary of Frank Harding, member of the Irving, and the Cornell Daily Sun editorial board, deputy collector of taxes, cigar manufacturer, and banker.

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3542/8/027_33.pdf Obituary of John More, member of the Irving, winner of the Woodford Prize, sergeant – Cadet Corps, Chi Psi, member of the Bar, Michigan, law partner of former Justice John W. Champlin, Grand Rapids.

This cite shows the Irving membership’s penchant for writing even after they left Cornell and became notable in their own right and their identity with the Irving:

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3582/16/041_20.pdf Obituary Julius Chambers, noted editor, author, and explorer, member of the Irving, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Senior Chess Club; editor, The Cornelian; class essayist, and battalion adjutant. In 1872 he equipped an expedition to the head waters of the Mississippi River, and on June 9, of that year, discovered Elk Lake, Minnesota, which is now officially recognized as the source of the river. The expedition is fully described in his ‘' The Mississippi River and Its Wonderful Valley," published in 1910. For this he was made a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society. His first newspaper work was with The New York Tribune, under Horace Greeley. In 1873 he joined the staff of The New York Herald, serving in various capacities from reporter to managing editor; in 1887 he established the Paris edition of the Herald. He left in 1899 to become managing editor of The New York World, and two years later retired from active newspaper work, devoting his time to writing articles, stories, and plays, and editing books. He was the author of many books of fiction, travel, and of more than two hundred short stories. Two plays and a musical comedy written by him were produced in New York. In 1903 and 1901 he was non-resident lecturer in journalism at Cornell, and in 1910 at New York University. Editor of the "Walks and Talks" column in The Brooklyn Eagle, and his last essay appeared a few hours before his death. He was a member of the Authors' Club, the Lotus Club, the New York Club, and the American Dramatics' Club.

Warner, another Irving member, was associated with the Society and continued to patronize the arts and letters:

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3542/5/027_36.pdf Obituary of John Warner, member of the Irving and a former Congressman and New York lawyer, as well as Cornell Trustee of the University, also a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon and a founder of Kappa Delta. For many years he was interested in art and at the time of his death was the oldest member of the Sculptors' Society in New York. From 1902 to 1905 he also served as president of the New York City Art Commission. Warner was a governor of the Municipal Art Society, member of the Shakespeare Club, the American Playgoers, the National Society of Mural Painters, and the New York City Bar Association. He also belonged to the National Arts Club and the University Club of Washington. He was the author of numerous articles on comparative mythology, Shakespearean studies, tariff discussions, monetary standards, bank and church policies, municipal administration, public art and miscellaneous topics.

--Hadem (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as of 30 April 2010, at 9:34 P.M.

Truthkeeper88: I haven’t had an end of semester since 1994. Much thanks to the WikiVeterans for helping clean up the novice mistakes.

Now, the tally thus far:

The rough consensus is in favor of retaining The Irving Literary Society, although that consensus lies among the general comers to the discussion and not among the WikiElite. Team Red’s response to Team Blue’s arguments, 28 APR to 30 APR, in favor of deleting the Irving Literary Society, listed in order of severity:

The author will consent to a negotiated settlement, with a merger of the Irving Literary Society article with Washington Irving’s article; Phi Kappa Psi is not an option, the reaction of that entity to the CURP ’66 was difficult, to put it politely, and I doubt the idea would fly even if author endorsed;

To the assertion that the Irving Literary Society lacks notability: this is the most serious accusation. First, the Irving admitted women (Meyer, Kelley) prior to the suffrage movement, ergo it is notable. It was open to Jews in the 1880s (Falkenau) and is therefore evidence that at least in one representative case (Cornell) inclusion existed, and then was retracted (1918-1958), before the institution opened up again in the 1960s. It’s members motioned within Cornell’s Sphinx Head to end discrimination against women in 1992, bringing to an end the last major barrier against Cornell women. It remains a working identity for its members long after their active years, and several trans-generational traditions exist. See the pages on Celaya, Hartell and Beal, whose works of art are a public celebration worthy of encyclopedic identification. In the performing arts, see Morgan and Tone. There are more in these traditions, but the author is working through the “living biographies” restrictions before posting. The list is not exhaustive (that would be self promotional) but rather instructive. The research, format and presentation followed from the methodology of N. Uphoff/Power & Elites in Society, 1986. It is notable and worthy of study became it is a tracer, tracking the generational shifts in the North American mittelstand;

To the assertion that the Irving is a fiction, the author has provided an external link to the operative document at http://www.phikappapsi-cornell.org/contact.asp; in addition, the Irving Literary Society’s Linkedin page musters 512 current members, the oldest being 84 years old. He resents being called “old and now-defunct” but has not been recruited to Meat Puppetry. He offered, but the author used Sphinx Head ties to prevent the transgression. The 125th Dean of the Irving has even posted; again, unsolicited (though he seems more at ease with a quill than a keyboard); see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-meyer/4/a13/933; the Linkedin site is only open to seniors and alumni members; the undergraduates are socialized to the Irving through the Facebook site: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=591257966;

To the assertion that the article is factually flawed: the author, not Team Red, has amended the article continuously and thanks all, Teams Red and Blue, for their comments. It is a better piece for the discussion;

To the assertion that the article is irregular in its presentation: the author only chose narrative supportable my direct citations. Author will continue to redraft, building more of a ‘story’, but is still concerned about too much narration;

To the assertion that the article is self-promotion, not so. It includes a fair amount of factual presentation unbecoming to the Irving, including the story of its decline in the 1880s. The model s for the article were provided by two other similarly-situated articles on the Sphinx Head Society and Quill & Dagger. “Promotional” would entail appealing to others or pushing a particular advantageous message; such material can be found in other venues: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dan-meyer/4/a13/933 and http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=591257966. Indeed, given the Team Blue critique of the article’s message, they concede it cannot be self-promotional;

To the assertion that the Irving lacks independence: and this is a reason for deletion, why? See the document at [CURP ‘66], which led to twenty years of very contentious relations between the Irving and it’s the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, over matters we can leave to another day. Certainly, the Irving remains independent of Phi Kappa Psi, and the document is that independence. Not independent of Cornell University? How many Wiki articles would that criteria collapse? Sphinx Head for one, maybe Q&D as well. The point is not independence, but notability. See supra;

Portions without citations can be edited; much of what has transpired in the past two days could have been dealt with in the normal course of Wikipedia’s treatment of new articles. We are in this position because the process was escalated to deletion; Citations are extensive; additional evidence has been posted and hyperlinked as requested; this process has been complicated by the general assertion of conclusory comments by Team Blue;

The references to female members of Phi Kappa Psi shall be removed; author is aware of approximately six members of that organization who have undergone sex changes since they were initiating, effectively making the institution desegregated, in an odd way. Was reluctant to not recognize the women, but will edit them out at NYC Russ’s request;

A larger number of individuals monitor Wikipedia than formally register; there is a belief among these individuals – reasonably so – that they become bona fide contributors when then post on this page; individual comments are to be rated on the merit of the text, rather than on the pedigree of the typist;

There is a difference between being a subject-matter expert competent to testify on a matter and being a single-purpose account holder. Team Red contains no single-purpose account holders, it merely musters a number of WikiNovices who have been involved in this matter only for a very short time;

Team Red obviously has a number of WikiNovices who have made formatting and sign on mistakes. Team Blue has pejorative characterized these actions in bad faith, with a number of accusations of Puppetry, meat and/or sock;

The opening argument against the article The Irving Literary Society was limited in its scope, informal in its presentation, and argued conclusions without articulating intervening premises. As such, the discussion has unfolded in a general progression, caught the eye of contributors, and collected more commentary from all.

For these reasons, the rough consensus is for retention of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmagha (talk • contribs) 01:39, May 1, 2010 and moved to the talk page

First:

Refer to the above summary posted by the author of the page in question. It thoroughly discusses and debates each relevant argument for deletion.

Second, a few comments on SPAs and puppetry:

When active members of the Irving Literary Society became aware of a possible wikipeida page deletion, we made the group aware of the situation and some subsequently started to post valid and constructive (for the most part) comments of support for the page. Call it meat-puppetry, but that is what happened. As far as puppets of the sock nature, there is only one - me. Like some of my peers, I edited wikipedia for the first time after becoming aware of the situation, and left a comment (as ISP 12.84.144.214) without logging in. I then made an account after realizing wikipedia just broadcasted my ISP address to the entire world.

I understand the administrators' decision to move us to the discussion page and protect the project page (with a semi lock) from poor formatting and puppetry in order to preserve the sanctity of WikiArticlesForDeletionProperDebateStyle, but I hope they have the sense to wade through all the this and look at the facts.

As mentioned, the author, Cmagha, has posted a very factually relevent summary that should read by all debators. Also, DGG, Cunard, Shoesss have some good thoughts on going forward. What I would ask for is some consistency in Wikipedia’s policy. I can go through and find a number of societies listed as entries, and certainly traditional encyclopedias did as much.

I am not counting votes, just updating Notyourbroom’s helpful summary:

I've done some research and here are more sources for the review. Enter “Irving” in the search when the .pdf loads:

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3164/31/002_31.pdf

Obituary of Mrs. Morton Abiel Brown, member of the Irving; this shows notability in the organization’s early admission of women at a time when many organizations associated with institutions of higher learning we segregated by gender;

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3541/15/026_26.pdf Obituary of Judge Buchwalter, founder of Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving; Phi Beta Kappa and Reconstruction judge noted for his civil liberties decisions; shows notability in the connections between the emancipation movement, Civil War, Cornell’s founding and the choice of literary societies as a form of organization by radical republicans;

http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3555/31/040_05.pdf Obituary of Elias Leavenworth Elliot, member of the Irving, Phi Kappa Psi, and pioneer in the emerging profession of lighting engineering, editor of The Illuminating Engineer.

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3553/8/038_28.pdf

Obituary of Henry Foster, member of the Irving and editor, Cornell Review;

http://www. ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3535/12/020_27.pdf Obituary of John Laurence, western journalist, member of the Irving, Psi Upsilon (founded by members of Phi Kappa Psi), editor, The Kansas City Journal.

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3535/5/020_34.pdf Obituary of Edward Parker, member of the Irving, Chi Psi, Lecturer of the Buffalo Law School, interested in art, and possessed fine collections of books, works of art, and unmounted gems. He had been an extensive traveler. He is described by a friend as somewhat eccentric, but noted for his vivacity.

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3535/5/020_34.pdf Obituary of Hiram Stack, member of the Irving and one of the leading educators of the Middle West,

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3542/22/027_19.pdf Another member of the Irving.

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3582/16/041_20.pdf Report of Dr. Mead’s receiving the 1939 Washington Award of the Western Society of Engineers; he was a member of the Irving. Dr. Mead was professor emeritus of hydraulic and sanitary engineering at the University of Wisconsin, where he taught from 1904 to 1932. In 1914 he was a member of the commission of the Red Cross and Chinese Republic for flood protection of the Huan River.

http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3539/7/024_34.pdf Obituary of Dan Flanner, “father of the Cornell gymnasium”.

http://www .ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3541/33/026_08.pdf Obituary of Dr. Wagner, active in literary circles and served as president of the Irving Literary Society in his senior year; staff, The Cornell Review; inducted as a a member of Quill and Dagger in the 1890s; attended the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia; member of the staff of the Utica State Hospital and while there was sent to Europe to study foreign hospital conditions. Tea36 (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

’’’KEEP’’’ - If notability requires cites to sources not connected to Cornell (see Sphinx Head website), these articles are available at Fulton History Online. Search box is in upper left hand corner:

http://fultonhistory.com/Fulton.html

The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884)(noting Irving Literary Society performance by Henry “Harry” Falkenau).

The Daily Journal (Nov. 8, 1870)(noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business).

The Ithacan (Apr. 7, 1869)(reporting the Irving Literary Society’s celebration of Washington Irving’s birthday).

Tea36’s materials establish notability in other ways, this one:

http://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3164/31/002_31.pdf Obituary of Mrs. Morton Abiel Brown, member of the Irving; shows notability in the organization’s early admission of women at a time when many organizations associated with institutions of higher learning were segregated by gender; it also shows a progressive institution of higher learning, integrating women as full members in the academic community in the years before discrimination became a norm; the cite to Harry Falkenau shows the Irving doing the same for Jews, years before Princeton and Columbia were barring entrance. These cites, combined with Tea36 empirical cites of notable people identified with the Irving, even late in life, establishes notability for this subject. In addition, this cite shows the Irving’s place at the University’s beginning: ttp://www.dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3165/34/003_34.pdf At this link, Professor Lincoln Burr’s address regarding the early growth of literary societies at Cornell is summarized. Lincoln took exception to the statement made by the Hon. Theodore Stanton, '78, in a letter published in the issue of May 15, that the Adelphi was the first debating club in the University. An investigation of old newspaper files disclosed the fact that the Adelphi society was formed about 1870. At that time there were already two societies, the Irving and Philaletheian, and these survived the Adelphi. Soon after the admission of women to the University, in 1872, the Curtis club was formed, which included a membership of both sexes. By the time of Professor Burr’s address, the old boarding clubs, however, had gone out of existence. The oldest of these was called "The Struggle for Existence." Others were "Survival of the Fittest" and "Destroying Angel." Near the site of Sibley Hall was a club known at first as "The Gentlemen's Eating Club" and afterward as "Hotel du Gorge." Brandnew215 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Brandnew215 Summary as of 5 May 2010; AM. I read Tea36’s comments, as well as DGG, Cunard, and Shoesss, and add the following. Like Tea36, this is not counting vote counting, just updating Notyourbroom’s helpful summary. A ‘ ‘ ‘ KEEP ’ ’ ’ from me:[reply]

’’’KEEP’’’ – This conversation seems to be avoiding an issue. The Irving’s notability is adequately reflected in non-Cornell sources, so the technical requirements in this area of Wikipedia review have been met. Even more importantly, the Irving took a 19th century position I do not see on either Sphinx Head or Quill and Dagger’s websites: it admitted women and Jews. For cites not connected to Cornell, go to Fulton History Online. Search box is in upper left hand corner: http://fultonhistory.com/Fulton.html The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884)(noting Irving Literary Society performance by Henry “Harry” Falkenau). The Daily Journal (Nov. 8, 1870)(noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business). The Ithacan (Apr. 7, 1869)(reporting the Irving Literary Society’s celebration of Washington Irving’s birthday). Also, I made edits along the lines suggested well by Voceditenore. Stripped out the fratspeak, leaving in only the material that seems to be necessary in light of Thorsten Veblen’s theories. Lebowski 666 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Lebowski_666[reply]

Summary as of 5 May 2010, later in the day. A ‘ ‘ ‘ KEEP ’ ’ ’ from me:

’’’KEEP’’’ – You’ve got notability, as within the general world of American higher education, this group was admitting women and Jews when many honorary societies were adopting convents against both. For external citing of notability, check out: http://fultonhistory.com/Fulton.html The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884)(noting Irving Literary Society performance by Henry “Harry” Falkenau). The Daily Journal (Nov. 8, 1870)(noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business). The Ithacan (Apr. 7, 1869)(reporting the Irving Literary Society’s celebration of Washington Irving’s birthday). I also updated the article, adding these citations. Coldplay332 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)coldplay332[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure why you are all wasting your time counting votes. Articles for Deletion discussions do not work that way. I suggest you all read WP:AfD to find out more about what you are actually participating in. Also a note to the new editors who have been making improvements/changes to The Irving Literary Society, you must always leave edit summaries whenever you change an article, and especially if it involves removing text. This is both a courtesy to other editors, and helps prevent your changes being reverted by other editors as vandalism. See WP:Edit summary for more about this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We got the idea from the Project page, with its early summary that has been left but not updated. Understand the manner in which review is conducted. Summary as of 5 May 2010, even later in the day:

• Reply I fully understand the manner in which it was conducted and why. Unfortunately, none of you do. The original summary was done because the discussion had been so disrupted by new editors, who had clearly been recruited to participate, did not understand the process, opined "keep" multiple times, added their comments in random positions all over the page, at one point blanked the AfD page, failed to sign their comments, signed each other's comments, edited each other's comments, used spurious date and signature stamps, etc. etc. that it had become unreadable. Eventually, an adminstrator had to protect the page so the discussion could continue. There is no need to update the summary because the closing administrator will go through each of the comments and the comments here to determine consensus. For what it's worth, your summary is wrong, FisherQueen was the administrator who protected the discussion, and as such she deleted her opinion so as to remain neutral. Voceditenore (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am sorry, but I take offense to your remarks. The whole Idea of taking an article to AFD is to generate discussion. From all parties, be they new editors or veteran Wikipedian's. I had believed, and have thought, that the foundation of Wikipedian's popularity was that anyone could edit, and that anyone could express an opinion. Are you saying this is not so? That only established editors can comment? Only established editors can edit current articles? Only established editors have opinion, either right or wrong, that should be noticed? If so shame on you!!! Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Voceditenore did not tell the new editors not to edit or express an opinion. Please re-read her comment which you have misinterpreted. She asked the new users not to place redundant, useless, erroneous summaries on this page because such summaries do not help in establishing consensus. I fully agree with everything Voceditenore has said and request that you not make these baseless accusations in the future.

  If you have an issue with FisherQueen (talk · contribs)'s protection, which I endorse, please contact FisherQueen on her talk page. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, ShoesssS, please re-read my comment. I didn't say anything of the kind. I simply pointed out the waste of their time making continuous and erroneous "vote tallies", which incidentally make it look like there were more "deletes" than there actually were. I also explained why an administrator took the decision to semi-protect the AfD page and move their comments here, where they will be examined on their merits by the closing administrator. FisherQueen took the decision following this discussion at ANI. If you disagee, then take it up with her, or ask another administrator to review the decision. Another editor [2] has been collapsing the incessant tallies to make this page readable, which I fully agree with. The wall of useless text they generated actually obscured the arguments and evidence the new editors were presenting. If you disagree, then by all means uncollapse them, or take it up with her. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did, and my comments stand. Thanks. - ShoesssS ^Talk 01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – We will continue to edit for style; but I think the editors are missing the point on notability. After the 1880s, discrimination became more prevalent in the Ivies than before 1890. The history of American inclusion is not progressive; we were once more inclusive than we were a generation later, and had to rediscover our more generous nature. Don’t get caught in the weeds. There were honorary societies at Cornell in 1990 that were less inclusive than the Irving was in 1887. Coldplay332 (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Coldplay332[reply]

• Reply No, I'm afraid you are missing the point about notability. It may well be the case that this society was more inclusive than the others at Cornell at the time, but that doesn't make it notable in the Wikipedia sense. You need to find independent reliable sources that verify that this was considered to have had a major impact. So much so, that someone outside your fraternity chose to single out this society for that reason and write about it. It may seem unfair, but that's the way it is. Wikipedia does not publish original research, opinions, and synthetic conclusions. The discussion is based on whether the sources provided are sufficient to pass the notability criteria for organizations. (Read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the pages linked there for more information.) The editors on the actual AfD page (most of whom are very experienced with many contributions, long experience of participating in AfDs, and no vested interest) currently disagree as to whether there are other sources which would allow it to pass. That's what the discussion is about. Voceditenore (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Have updated the draft to reflect this new (old) information. Also dropped more fratspeak, keeping only what seemed essential giving the Veblen reference. The Daily Democrat citation serves the same purpose as the New York Times citations in the Sphinx Head and Quill and Dagger articles, establishing notability. Not entirely clear what you accept as sufficiently remote from Cornell’s interest to be a source proving notability; newspapers write what their audiences want to read. Sphinx Head and Quill and Dagger have citations in the New York Times, in part, because a large number of Cornellians read that paper. Why weren’t those authors required to produce cites from, say, the London Times? There is a growing double standard in this discussion.

Consider your own record, Wikipeadians:

Philomathean Society, the only source on this page is the society’s own website.

Philomathean Society (New York University), there are no sources at all on this page, although there is some NY scribble at the bottom.

Eucleian Society, these sources are not about notability, and this group is not being held to the standard the Irving is being held to;

Sphinx (senior society), at Dartmouth, has Dartmouth sources and one source in the Chronicle of Higher Education, regarding the notable installation of a toilet.

These cites also show Irving notability:

Again another at Fulton History:

Daily Democrat 2 (Sept. 27, 1884)(“The Irving literary society met last evening, but was poorly attended. This institution should be one of the most prosperous student societies in the college, but strange to say, it has deteriorated in point of numbers, and its management has fallen into the hands of technical instead of literary students.”)

Cornell Alumni News (October 29, 1936) at 76. '70—(DEWITT) JOHNSON BRIGHAM, Iowa State Librarian, October 8, 1936, at his home in Des Moines, Iowa. At the opening of the University, he entered the Philosophy Course from Hamilton College as a Junior, and remained one year. He had served in the Union Army during the Civil War. From 1881 to '83 he was editor and publisher of the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Republican; then was American consul in Aix-La-Chapelle, Germany; and for four years was editor and publisher of the Midland Monthly, before he became State Librarian in 1898. He was a past president of the Des Moines Chamber of Commerce, the Iowa State Library Association, and the National Association of State Libraries. His many books include "The Youth of Old Age," for which the Iowa Library Association awarded a plaque in 1934 as the outstanding contribution by an Iowa author. Irving Literary Association; Alpha Delta Phi.

Lebowski 666 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Lewbowski_666[reply]

• Reply HI Lebowski. To respond to your concerns, let me first remind you that this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As a result, there are many edits made across the encyclopedia every day by inexperienced editors that violate wikipedia policies. We have a number of processes in place to attempt to catch these violations, but it is certainly not full proof. The wikipedia articles you have pointed out do have problems which need to be addressed. They certainly can not be used as a precedent for how to treat this article and instead must also be made to comply with policy. You will find in wikipedia debates that we base arguements on policies that were developed over time through wide community consensus and do not bring in comparisons with other articles often for this reason.

As for references, we do not consider sources with a connection to the subject as reliable. Publications from Cornell University would therefore be viewed as unreliable within the context of this article since it is not independent of the subject. Articles must also demonstrate "significant coverage" to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Local newspaper articles are generally not considered sufficient enough to establish significant coverage, although they can be used within articles to verify content. Further, "signifcant coverage" is only established when the article's subject is the primary subject of multiple notable references. It's not enough to be mentioned in The New York Times or to have an event covered in that newspaper. The organization itself would need to be the subject of the article. I hope this adequately answers your questions/concerns.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay332 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Coldplay332 Edited out more fratspeak and added some secondary sources not published by the Irving to further reinforce ‘notability’. The Wikipedians need to come to terms with their lack of consensus, and Lebowski_666 is on to something here. Where are all the AfD petitions to remove the Sphinx of Dartmouth, whose only source proving notability is an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education stating they had a toilet installed. Why is the Irving getting a flush, and not the Sphinx?[reply]

I have noted this on the AfD page. Re your recent edits to the article, reverting any attempt to remove the PR for your fraternity, the deliberate obscuring of the fact that the ILS's sole membership is now restricted to members of your fraternity, which does not admit women, and the complete lack of neutrality... Well, so be it. Keep the thoroughly unencylopedic contents and tone. Use it to publicize your fraternity. To any neutral observer, this is very obvious, which is why Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest. COI editing virtually never results in a good article, and this is a prime example. Believe it or not, in its current state it reflects poorly on the organization's reputation rather than enhancing it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other bad articles exist is never a reason to keep a bad article. We don't just ignore policy and guidelines here because no one has taken another article to AfD, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you think it doesn't cut the mustard as a Wikipedia article, you are free to take it to AfD so long as it isn't just to make a WP:POINT about this one. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay332 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Coldplay332 My apologies: that way of editing is not good but I didn't realize that at the time. Your edits were great. By the way, the Lebowski 666 and I are not frat boys. We felt sorry for them and their monosyllabic lexicon, so we decided to help out. Again, please don't take offense.[reply]

So you and Lebowski 666 have no affiliation whatsoever with Phi Kappa Psi and have never had one? The way you are editing the article suggests otherwise. And if my edits "were great", why did you revert them within 10 minutes and add even more puffery? I'm not offended, I see this kind of stuff going on all the time at Wikipedia. It was an experiment to see if experienced and neutral Wikipedia editors would be able to edit the article into a something half-way decent without being immediately reverted. It's obviously not going to be possible, so I'll just point out the problems on the article's talk (if it's kept) leave you to it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lebowski 666 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Lebowski_666 I have no affiliation with the fraternity, Cornell, or the Irving Society. By the way, I liked your edits.[reply]

Comment – You are reading the right document. But the CURP ’66 was a little more significant than just a simple agreement between one fraternity and the University. There had been significant concern at Cornell after 1949 regarding discriminatory practices of national fraternities; this became acute after a finding of discrimination in some houses by the IFC in 1961 or so. When the fraternity entered into the agreement (actually, in 1962), it agreed to the non-discrimination clause currently in the CURP ’66. The issue of gender was dealt with globally, as the CURP-system included male and female “Group Houses”. There was some thought through the 1970s and 1980s that Cornell would integrate all housing options by gender (as did Colgate and eventually Dartmouth); after the AIDs pandemic, it was decided to leave a variety of choices available to students. But the CURP-system itself is still gender-neutral. If there are ways we can accommodate your interpretation of the document, I am sure some editing could be done. Mr. Hill is no longer alive; his cousin Joe died just last month. But the Irving Literary Society reference accomplished a very significant reconciliation. Many alumni 1966 did not view the fraternity, itself, as an intellectual enterprise (as was the view in the 1880s). It was a social club. Section 4 of the CURP ’66 clearly looked toward Residential Programming as a means of implementing ‘living and learning’ policy. So the entities are distinct; the Dean is not an officer of the Chapter. When we recently had Tom Ridge’s former Chief of Staff in for a talk, non-fraternity participants were in attendance. As for the Board of Trustees decision on CURP ’66, it was reaffirmed by President Rawlings as late as 1998:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/97/10.9.97/housingplan.html

Tea36 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this document and my comments on Talk:The Irving Literary Society. The entities are not "distinct" in any real sense. All members of the NY Alpha chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity are now automatically members of the society, and only members of that fraternity can now be members of the ILS, i.e. only males. Whether non-members attend some of the lectures, is irrelevant. Furthermore the University's "living and learning" policy applies to multiple similar organizations at Cornell, not just yours. I see no evidence of it playing a unique, let alone "significant role" in either the policy's development or implementation. The article is full of these kinds of inflated claims, original research, irrelevant padding (e.g. about how the "Group Sponsor", aka the fraternity, chooses furniture and paintings for their current residence), and deliberate obscuring of the fact that the original ILS has been defunct since 1887 and resembles the entity now operated by the fraternity in name only. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]