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 no consensus.

The article has been heavily edited during the AfD and one of the principal concerns of those advocating deletion - that the article drew an improper link between the pre-1900 society and future organisations - has been addressed by the removal of the link. A number of the early delete !votes (eg 4meter4) have to be seen in that context. The AfD has to be judged on whether there is a consensus to delete an article devoted only to the pre-1900 society.

In that debate, there is no consensus. There was some discussion late in the AfD about whether the degree of sourcing about the 19th century society was sufficient but there was nothing approaching a consensus either way. The concerns of some delete !voters - that the article retains highly aggrandizing statements about the society's influence that don't appear to be supported by the sources - look justified to me. There is significant room for the heavy editing, that has lead to a subpar article getting kept at AfD, being continued after this close. I would be happy to hear anyone's concerns if there are any ownership issues that impede such editing.

I have taken into account the fact that a number of the keep !voters appear to be associated, even if not by sockpuppetry. Even if I was to take the extreme route and disregard all those !votes, the outcome would still have been no consensus, because this debate is decided on arguments not numbers and there are a number of substantially well-reasoned keep arguments from unassociated editors (Voceditenore and DGG in particular) that stand in the way of a consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 7 November 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)

This article is a POV fork of Cornell literary societies. It was cut and pasted from an earlier article that was deleted in May 2010. On October 1, the author asked that a userfied version be restored in Deletion Review. Today, a checkuser found that of the total 7 !votes for "allow recreation" at Deletion review 5 of them came from a batch of sockpuppets, of which 3 were from the same person. So sockpuppetry distorted the DR process. After restoration, because the sources covered a number of literary societies equally, I moved it to Cornell literary societies and deleted unsourced materials claiming that one of the literary societies was now co-extensive with the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Absent that undocumented link, it is against WP:ORG for the Cornell chapter to have an article separate from the main Phi Kappa Psi article. All of the sourced material in this article is already in the other fork. Racepacket (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 17:04, November 4, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. For those participating in this discussion, also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive and this archive of the deletion review.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Allegation of Sockpuppetry found unsubstantiated by Wikipedia Checkusers.--Cmagha (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline The history of this saga is so convoluted that I've made a timeline so discussants will know what we're talking about:

1. The Irving Literary Society is deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society by the closing admin User:Spartaz on 14 May 2010
2. Article is userfied to User:Cmagha by User:Spartaz on 15 June 2010
3. Article is moved back to article space under the title The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) by User:Colonel Warden on 3 July 2010
4. The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) is re-userfied by User:Spartaz later on 3 July 2010
5. Article is brought to deletion review as The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) and following the discussion moved back into article space by the closing admin User:Cirt on 8 October 2010
6. The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) is moved to Cornell literary societies by User:Racepacket on 24 October 2010
7. A cut and paste fork of Cornell literary societies is created by User:Cmagha as The Irving Literary Society later on 24 October 2010. This is the article now under discussion for deletion here.

– Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG and per the original discussion. The sockpuppetry on the DRV was apalling, but equally appalling was the closing admin's apparent failure to notice it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. No sockpupperty existed; basis for this 'Delete' no longer exists.--Cmagha (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what he said. He did not give sockpuppetry as the basis for his opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An individual branch of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity is not notable; fails WP:Org. However, there is no definite connection provable between the historic Irving Society at Cornell and its current reincarnation as a part of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. This whole premise is therefore original research and synthesis (if not outright fraud and deception). The 19th century Irving Society may indeed be notable, but the current Cornell organization of that name is not. This causes a conundrum in the AFD because really we have a notable organization of the past being obfiscated by a non-notable organization of the present which is trying to capitalize on the earlier organization's history under false pretenses. Indeed, supposed "members" (ie JFK) of the organization are listed who were alive during a time period when the Irving was completely inactive in any form. The current article is so rife with false information, original synthesis, and inflated claims it would require an entire rewrite to be of any value to wikipedia. The best course of action is deletion without prejudice to recreate an article on the 19th century Irving Society. However, I personally believe this topic is better covered not at its own article but in context at Cornell literary societies. On a side note, someone may want to contact Cornell and the national office of Phi Kappa Psi and let them know about the shady behavior of this fraternity. This sort of thing is a bad reflection on both the university and the fraternity.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an amendment to Cornell's fraternity recognition policy is already on the agenda of this weekend's Board of Trustees meeting. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Associate Dean for Fraternities & Sororities was briefed on Thursday; the End of Year Reports filed by Phi Kappa Psi have referenced the Irving; also sent him newletter clippings noting Irving activities (he receives the newsletter as a courtesy as well).--Cmagha (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have notified the two closing admins of the first AfD and the DR, User:Spartaz and User:Cirt, as well as the only non-sockpuppet participants at the DR, User:DGG and User:Umbralcorax of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. No sockpupperty existed; basis for this 'Comment' no longer exists. Please notify all you contacted.Cmagha (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notify them of what? These are the 4 messages I sent [1], [2], [3], and [4]. They do not mention the sockpuppet investigation at all. The only one who was later notified of the investigation was Cirt, and not by me. It was the T. Canens, the administrator who had made the initial blocks. I suggest you take it up with him. Or alternatively just tell Cirt yourself. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The sockpuppet issue seems to be more complicated than it appears from the SPI case. It may be that these are different people, after all. I'm checking with a checkuser who ran a check on these accounts previously. T. Canens (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the professionalism, et alethia.--Cmagha (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Suitable sources exist. Cannot see any POV ISSUE requiring deleting. Sockpuppetry should have no effect on what we do, one way or the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are no sources to show that Irving Literary Society exists after May 27, 1887, and there are sources that say it dissolved at that point. Racepacket (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reference from 1896 mentioning it in present tense. Regardless, I am impressed that there are clear sources from long ago, and so even if it was short lived, there should be an article. If you are right, there may be a battle to remove mention of a non-notable revival group from the article, but, big as that battle would be, it is not one to be decided by AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, the article you cite says, "The oldest of the early socieities, the Irving, lived on until 1887, the issue of the Cornell Daily Sun for May 27 of that year containing the announcement of the meeting which proved to be its last." (p. 192) Racepacket (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right. I still don't know that the answer is deletion. There was a notable society. A new group has recently adopted the name. There does need to be a clear distinction between the two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable enough. sockpuppet drama is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as individually notable. Per WP:SS, it's appropriate there be a summary at the general page for the literary societies and and individual article. Regardless of prior sockpuppet activity, we're judging the article now. The relationship with the present fraternity seems real, but needs to be de-emphasized, as there is no indication it is presently important. The general information of Cornell literary society history is properly in the general articles and can be removed here. I did some editing accordingly. More is needed if the article is kept, but I wanted to get it started DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. First, no one is suggesting that this article be deleted for sockpupppet activity. Second, on what evidence are you basing this real relationship? There is roughly a century gap between the two organizations. Cornell does not list the Irving Society in any internal publications for over 100 years between the first organizations demise and the second organization's creation. Considering there are literarly daily records published by Cornell about student organization meetings/activities (including those by all this school's fraternities and sororities) this is quite telling. Further, none of the published books on Cornell history mention the organization exsisting beyond the 19th century.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if there is no real relationship, but only claimed to be, the matter can be discussed on the talk page, and appropriately edited to reflect the claim. A dispute about content is not reason for deletion. the later material can be moved to a separate article. The earlier organization was notable, and therefore is appropriate for an article. You are right that a very tolerant view of sourcing would certainly support articles on all student clubs, though we in practice have defined acceptable sources to prevent it. I take no position on whether we should change that practice, but it does not affect the notability of the historic 19th century societies. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Thank you for informing me of the AFD. For the time being, I'm going to abstain until I can get a better grasp on what the heck is going on here. My initial reaction is to keep, since I thought the article was good at DRV, but that may just be a knee-jerk reaction, and I'd rather be my decision be more informed than reactionary. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just took an axe to the article and removed the sections that were based solely on original research/synthesis and, dare I say it, out right lies. With the article now being solely about the historical Irving, I am fine with keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep – I was neutral in the original AfD (although I expressed serious doubts about the sourcing, style, spurious claims,etc.), and I did not participate in the Deletion Review. Ironically, the COI editors from the fraternity didn't need to resort to meat/sockpuppetry at the DR— it almost certainly would have passed in any case. Initially, it seemed preferable to me to incorporate this article into Cornell literary societies (minus the still completely unreferenced, and in several places spurious, claims about the current Phi Kappa Psi fraternity "version" of the society). However, after reading through both of these articles this morning (prior to 4meter4's edits described above) and assessing their potential, I've changed my mind.

  The historical ILS which became defunct in 1887 has sufficient notability established via reliable sources for an article on its own. In fact, there is so much information pre-1887 relative to the other societies that it would seriously unbalance the other article. The general material about literary societies at Cornell in this article should sit in Cornell literary societies. The bulk of the information about the ILS should sit here with a summary and ((main)) link in the other. The version I read needed very heavy editing to bring it up to standard, and even the current one needs restructuring and more editing. Anyone wishing to read Talk:The Irving Literary Society and Talk:Cornell literary societies/Archive 1 will understand why such an editing process has been very, very difficult up to now and may prove to be so in the future, given the fraternity editors' stated intention to protect "their article". But that's no reason to delete it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to a very weak keep following the comments of Richfife below. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Plea/Query for closing adminstrator If this page is kept, can it please be moved to a final appropriate title with all the histories and redirects sorted out once and for all? The Irving Literary Society is not suitable for two reasons: (1) Per WP:MOS and the historical sources, "The" is not part of the title of the organization and should not be part of the article title (2) There are several entities in the US called the "Irving Literary Society", most of which have a longer and well-documented history and are more notable than this one. I would strongly suggest using Irving Literary Society (Cornell University).

  Also, a user who has just registered today, IndtAithir, appears to have cut and pasted a copy of this article (without attribution) at User talk:IndtAithir. My understanding of Wikipedia:UP#COPIES is that it doesn't belong there. I'll leave him/her a note about this, but perhaps an adminstrator could take a look and/or advise too? Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update After I left this note, the user removed the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given the recent edits, there is nothing in this article that is not in the other folk, Cornell literary societies. As a practical matter, wouldn't it be best if this folk was deleted so that it would not attract further vandalism from the PKP members who want to add unsourced material about their fraternity? Racepacket (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Not really. First of all, if the two articles are properly edited and structured, there will be virtually no overlap between them. Some material from this one belongs in Cornell literary societies; the bulk of the material specifically on the Cornell ILS belongs in this one; and spurious unreferenced claims, misrepresented sources, and promotional language belong in neither. Secondly, you can't delete an article on a notable subject simply because it might/will attract original research, conflict of interest and biased editing. By that token, half the articles on Wikipedia would have to go. ;-) Painful as it is, those issues will have to be thrashed out on the talk page, or taken to wider forums if necessary, e.g. the various content noticeboards. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were moved to "Irving Literary Society (1868-1887)" it would disamb. the other Irving Literary Societies and would discourage any tacking on of current Cornell revivals. What motivated the other fork was that the sources covered a number of societies equally, but that got translated as "Irving and its peers" in this article. Racepacket (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, simple dates are not good disambiguators in terms of the reader's experience, which should be paramount. Besides, if reliable independent sources can be found concerning the later "resuscitation" of its name as an aspect of the PKP fraternity, there's no reason why a brief mention of that (without undue weight) can't go into the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if there is substantial third party documentation of PKP being the continuation of Irving it should be reported. However, that has been requested since May 2010, and none has yet to be discovered. Racepacket (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As I have used wireless at Cornell and in the Metro Washington, D.C. area, my IP address may be the same, from time to time, as other Wikipedia editors. None are co-workers; some are peer Cornellians. I am also a member of the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving Literary Society. The Chapter and the Irving are not one and the same, so this would not be a article about "the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi". Deanship passes from one Dean to the next; the Chapter enjoys coincident membership, and fellowship with honoraries. As for notability I provided these comparators and a summary of the research earlier this month. Brought forward for review, but do read all the commentary. In order of less, to more, evidence: Sphinx (senior society) (Notability based incredibly on primary, Dartmouth sources), Philolexian Society (like the Sphinx at Dartmouth, all are Dartmouth sources), Episkopon (nice, notability determined by three primary sources, one of which is somebody's resume), American Whig-Cliosophic Society (notability accepted from one secondary source which is a simple, unlabeled list), Elizabethan Club (notability determined by one secondary source dating from 1921, and not linked; everything else is a Yale publication), Franklin Society (Notability based merely on two secondary, Non-Brown University sources), - - Irving's evidence quality/quantity falls here. - - Philodemic Society (notability established from two secondary sources), Jefferson Literary and Debating Society (notability apparent from two secondary sources, which are exactly the same as the Washington's at UVA), Washington Literary Society and Debating Union (notability apparent from two secondary sources), Philomathean Society (notability well deserved from four secondary and one primary source),.

Total of nineteen (19) citations supporting notability, more than any comparator linked, supra.

Best Evidence, eight (8) Secondary Sources specifically citing the Irving.

• United States Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York, Circular of Information No. 3, (H.B. Adams, ed. 1900) at 393.</ref> (Non-Cornell secondary source describing the Irving specifically as “a purely literary society,” cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); see also p. 74;

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• John H. Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County (1894) at X.;

• Thomas Spencer Harding, College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States, 1815–1876 (171) at 265; (Non-Cornell secondary source, albeit relatively minor, which nonetheless adds support for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• Catalogue of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity (Aldrice C. Warren, ed. 1910) at 1001 (Non-Cornell secondary source noting the importance of membership in the Irving);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Shield (16:1)(Theta Delta Chi March 1900) at 210;

• Fayette E. Moyer, "Literary Societies," Cornell Magazine (January 1895) at 187–194. (Although a Cornell source, this citation notes that the Irving also admitted women to membership, but the Philaletheian, believing that there ought to be one society which devoted itself purely to debate, remained an organization for men only, thereby meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations.). See also Carol Kammen, Cornell: glorious to view (2003) at 39. (non-Cornell source supporting the same);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) at 128 (non-Cornell secondary source noting that by 1884 and 1886, the Irving was feeling pressed by Cornell Athletics. Cite meets need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that — no evidence of the Irving being mentioned, let alone discussed Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977)(Although written by a Cornellian, this source notes that the Irving Literary Society, along with the Christian Association, was one of the few campus venues in which Cornell member could participate as equals with Cornell men. The early membership criteria are an example of the cyclical, rather than evolutionary, nature of gender inclusion noted by feminist theorists. As such, it supports reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.).

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Nobody claims that the post-1888 Irving, if it exists, was open to women. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that – no mention whatsoever

Strong Evidence, seven (7) Primary Sources directly identifying the Irving:

• University Chronicle, “Educational” (Univ. Mich.)(Jan. 16, 1869) at 2. (identifying the Irving as one of Cornell’s two literary societies. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Just a list entry, not substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Irving Literary Society," The Ithacan (Apr. 4, 1869) at 2; (Non-Cornell source editorial stating that the Irving was "first in the field");

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Local. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daily Journal (Ithaca, New York)(Nov. 8, 1870) at 2 (Non-Cornell primary source noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Local. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• “Exchanges,” The Virginia University Magazine (12:2)(Nov. 1873) at 266 (non-Cornell primary source noting that the Irving was entertaining an agenda which strayed from traditional literary activities. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Daily Democrat 2 (Ithaca, New York)(Sept. 27, 1884)(Non-Cornell primary source stating “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.” Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884) at 2.

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Local. Two-sentence meeting announcement. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• James Gardner Sanderson, "The Personal Equation," Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (67:397)(January 1901) at 86. (referring to that the Irving and Philaletheaian as “the two literary societies [that] were everything . . .” during the early years, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations; the article is a memoir by a Cornellian);

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Not substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evidence, four (4) Secondary or Primary Sources which may not directly identify the Irving, but refer to literary societies at Cornell in a manner, which when combined with another source, prove notability of the subject:

improper invitation to violate WP:SYN Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blake Gumprecht, The American Collegetown (2008) at 77 (Non-Cornell general secondary source citation on student culture at Cornell, noting that the Irving and its peers established an environment conducive to free intellectual thought in the early years, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (3d.)(1874-75) at 77 (showing Irving as one of two senior literary societies) to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• “Cornell University,” The People’s Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge (W.H. DePuy ed. 1897) at 687 (Non-Cornell, secondary sources, referencing literary societies in general. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (1879-1880) at 5 to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987), at 45–51 (Non-Cornell, albeit general, secondary source referencing Cornell on the role literary societies, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.) combined with David Fellows More, The Historical Journal of the More Family (John More Association 1913) and Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) to confirm the general Gerald Graff cite refers, in part, to the Irving);

not a useful source Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869)(Non-Cornell primary source identifying Cornell’s literary societies as electing men of talent and work, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. But it is a primary source, not secondary. Though cited to round out the Graff citation, it also stands on its own as proof of notability).Cmagha (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that. Doesn't mention it by name at all full copy here Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To anyone still skeptical about possible "sock-puppetry": as I have also used wireless at Cornell, my IP address may be the same as other Wikipedia editors. I am also a member of the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving Literary Society, but that is not why I vote to keep. I vote to keep because I think the above reasons stated by Cmagha, more than establish notability of the Irving Literary Society and merit a Wikipedia page.Tea36 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please explain what sources show that the pre-1888 Irving is in any way related to Phi Kappa Psi. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This describes what is available on line, "In 1966, a Cornell Priority Group doing business as the Irving Literary Society entered into an agreement with the University to support residential housing on its West Campus, through the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966. That Priority Group is supported by a Group Sponsor with an historical association to the Irving. The Irving maintains a presence at Cornell." Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources and the referenced materials do not show that the pre-1888 Irving is related to Phi Kappa Psi. Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All other issues aside, my concern with this article is its extremely inflated opinion of its importance and the way the topic is presented. The Irving may have been an important student activity for its less than two decades of existence over one hundred years ago, but there were many similarly important groups during the period (Cornell University Christian Association, Cornell Era, Cornell Congress, other literary societies, debating societies, social clubs, etc.), and there is no reason for these groups to have their own Wikipedia pages. Most of the article has nothing to do with the Irving specifically. The "History" section is a skewed look at American intellectual history and an attempt to present the Irving as an influential part. The article tries to present Cornell's first commencement as an activity of the Irving simply because its members were there. Specific details of its meetings, discussions, and events do not belong on Wikipedia. The room in White Hall was used by all the societies, and this and other material could go under Cornell literary societies, although I similarly question whether the old literary societies collectively are even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I have no doubt that Phi Kappa Psi has internally maintained the concept of the Irving as part of their chapter's tradition, but it's foolish to pretend that it is a separate entity or at all notable on campus since its closing 1887. There is no legitimate published history (or historian) of Cornell University who would agree with the claims in this article about the Irving's importance. Morris Bishop's "A History of Cornell" makes a single mention of its founding, along with the other literary societies, noting that the Curtis Society was more important since it was the first to be coeducational. Cornell2010 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I may have the same IP as someone working in my building; doubt that I’d have the same IP as someone at Cornell, unless the IP is shared with service providers at Syracuse, when I visit my alma mater. Based on the notability evidence presented by Cmagha, above, this needs to be kept. Also, I’d like the text amended to put back the connection to Group House No. IV of the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966, the Irving’s steward. This is not duplicating the National fraternity’s page, and it is clear the National does not have an Irving organization at every Chapter. Take a look at the documentation on that page I linked. This is what the article should say to summarize the facts, NEW TEXT: “In 1966, a Cornell Priority Group doing business as the Irving Literary Society entered into an agreement with the University to support residential housing on its West Campus, through the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966. That Priority Group is supported by a Group Sponsor with an historical association to the Irving. The Irving maintains a presence at Cornell. You don’t even have to get into the debate over frat-bashing. It’s a Group House. Coldplay3332 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such sophistry. The argument moves from it being a social fraternity, to a literary society and now is it just a "Group House." If it is just a "group house" why is it a member of Cornell's interfraternity council rather than aligning itself with the various non-fraternity housing such as Watermargin? Racepacket (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfDs are not the place to discuss proposals/minutiae for wording of the article. Those belong on the article's talk page. Anyone reading it will find it a real eye-opener. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into Cornell literary societies with expansion more or less intact. I see no need for a separate article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging back would form a copying loop, which can interfere with any future deletion. Upon examination of the net edits, one finds that the majority of changes are removals, plus moving a few sentences around. The "First Commencement Exercises" ref is newly added. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have read the various sources recently added to this AfD. There is nothing to establish a direct lineage to the Irving Literary Society that existed before 1888. Some self-generated public relations material claims that this particular social fraternity is trying to keep the spirit of the Irving Literary Society alive, is its "steward" or has somehow "absorbed" Irving's legacy, but that does not represent a reliable source independent of this fraternity reporting that Irving continued on in this manner. Whatever notability the pre-1888 Irving had cannot be automatically transfered to the PKP fraternity, which is clearly a different organization, with a different membership criteria and a different purpose. Present day PKP is distinct from pre-1888 Irving just as Cornell University is distinct from Cornell College — similar names is not enough of a link. This POV fork is based on the assumption that both PKP and Irving are undisputably the same organization. I hope that the closing administrator will apply the WP:COWORKER policy and count the multiple users sharing the same IP address as just one !vote. Racepacket (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for all the excellent discussion. Cmagha (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• “Strong Keep.” Readers should note that this is a Cornell student responding to the post of a former Cornell Trustee. Racepacket has asserted that that citations provided by Coldplay3332 --- who is neither a Cornellian, nor a member of the Irving, nor a member of Phi Kappa Psi – are not reliable or verifiable. In this matter, Racepacket is wrong and he has once again overstated a Wikipedia standard (a common tactic of Deletionists).

We know that “[n]o source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such [Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources source].” We have three sources here, all of which are verifiable, which when COMBINED, make a casual connect. One item is a legal document produced to order the relations between the University and a group of alumni. It is highly reliable in that it is not produced for promotion, or even third party review. And it was produced almost a half century ago; we have a letter between two individuals regarding the production of a directory for use internally, again a document not produced for promotion or purposes other than a directory’s accuracy. And then we have a collection of news clippings distributed to members returning for Homecoming, materials produced in the normal course of the Society’s business. All three of these are reliable for the reasons stated above, they are verifiable in that they can be accessed.

The evidence is best summarized as “[i]n 1966, a Cornell Priority Group doing business as the Irving Literary Society entered into an agreement with the University to support residential housing on its West Campus, through the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966. That Priority Group is supported by a Group Sponsor with an historical association to the Irving. The Irving maintains a presence at Cornell.

Strong Keep. Wehatweet (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I have reformatted the indents in Wehatweet's statement above for clarity (it originally looked like 3 separate unsigned comments + 1 signed one. To avoid confusion, I have also struck through the second bolded "strong keep" in the same statement. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussants only state "keep" (or "strong keep" in your case) once in an AfD. Please strike the second one. Secondly, as was pointed out above, AfDs are not the place to discuss proposals/minutiae for wording of the article. Those belong on the article's talk page, where this proposed addition is already being discussed. Thirdly, you really must read No original research (especially the Synthesis section) and Verifiability as defined by Wikipedia, not dictionaries. From your argument above, I don't think you understand them. Racepacket is making his argument based on these key Wikipedia policies not because he is a "deletionist", a characterization which is unhelpful, without foundation,[5] and irrelvant to this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see Wehatweet in the discussion of this AfD prior to the Strong Keep just posted, maybe I am missing it. As for the No original research, not sure the standard is as tight as you state. It says "[s]elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field." The sources themselves are not promotional; one is a legal document, one is internal correspondance, and the other is a collection of newsletter articles printed as news to society members. Just a thought. Coldplay3332 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply He says it at the beginning of his oddly formatted comment ("“Strong Keep.” Readers should note that this is a Cornell student responding...") and again the end, the one which you have just bolded. One of them needs to be struck. Per the second part of your comment, see WP:SYN and Talk:The Irving Literary Society#Suggested New Text. I'm not sure why you both keep bringing this into the AfD discussion. It is irrelevant to whether the 19th century society is sufficiently notable for an article on its own. (I happen to think the 19th century society is sufficiently notable and have opined "keep" accordingly.) I suggest you concentrate your arguments for "keep" on that issue rather than trying to get text about the fraternity's version of the ILS inserted into the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I hope the closing administrator will consider the possiblity of off-Wiki Meatpuppetry among some of the keep voters here who were listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive. Racepacket (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References don't support the assertions made (they mostly talk about literary societies in general, not this one). Notability not proven. Seems almost like a case of reverse recentism (it's old, therefore it must be meaningful). - Richfife (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You have a point about reverse recentism. I've just been going through it again today. A lot of it is off-topic padding comparing it to secret societies, on the completely unsupported contention that it is now part of a current fraternity (I've removed it). The business about choosing the name was a misrepsesentation of the source — John Rea is nowhere mentioned in it. I suspect there's still plenty more of that stuff going on there. The stuff on Society Hall, applies to all the 19th century societies and properly belongs in Cornell literary societies, not this one. An accurate, properly sourced article, devoid of purple prose would be rather short. Still not sure if that's grounds for deleting it, but my "keep" has now become a "very weak" one. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a certain "wow" factor going through either the bound volumes from the 1880s or their digitized versions. However, I think that everything worth keeping in the now-slimmed-down ILS article is already in Cornell literary societies. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a "wow" factor, which the editors writing the ILS article had when they first read them, and served as an inspiration for writing the article now under consideration for deletion. There is room on Wikipedia for TWO articles, one on the literary societies in general, and one on the Irving. Cmagha (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whilst the article has been rewritten I still have the same concerns as I did at the first AFD. i.e. that WP:ORG is not met sufficiently for a standalone article. Nancy ^talk 07:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if the sources noted previously only refer to the pre-1888 version of the ILS, it establishes notability for the ILS. Notability is not temporary. The article may need modification to focus more on the older form of the society, but I don't see it requiring utter deletion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 10:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not temporary for the same organization. There is nothing to establish that the pre-1888 ILS is the same organization as what Phi Kappa Psi is doing now. Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Which is why I mentioned that the article may need to be refocused toward its elder incarnation. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I agree. However, when I looked at the sources, particularly the non-local sources, I found that they discussed the literary societies as a group. (They had a number of joint activities including debating contests and printing a student-written magazine.) So I moved the article to Cornell literary societies, and I don't think that the non-local sources would support ILS as a separate article. Racepacket (talk) 11:31, 7 November 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.