Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peucinian Society (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Wizardman 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peucinian Society

Peucinian Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Was nominated for deletion on March 26, but the resulting discussion degenerated into a train wreck. The nominator's first contribution was to start the discussion, and all participants had no or few edits outside the topic. The only way to resolve this was to close and relist the discussion. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Blueboy96 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep With a few alumni like that, seems notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable. More references would be nice. Izzy007 Talk 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: "Seems notable?" Errr ... is there any reason to think that it is notable, or that there are any reliable sources about this obscure society other than an archival note on the Bowdoin library website stating that it existed? Did this group have any influence other than that it purportedly had members who became famous later in life? (Emphasis on "purportedly;" there is no evidence on offer that any of those blue-links were actual members.) Almost all the work on this article comes from two SPAs who've slipped Peucinian references in to other articles.  RGTraynor  18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Although importance seems a bit limited, due to a handful of biography-friendly alumni including Longfellow and Joshua Chamberlain, there are book sources published up to the present day. For the most part these are side references rather than in-depth coverage, but combined with the other material on Google Books including personal reminiscences and primary sources, there's enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge on main articleKeep Let's check the sources for this, shall we? First hit on google: [1] An archive, by the college of the minutes and info of the society. The National Library of Australia cites this [2], looks self published though. And more important, the book that is the main source for Literary Societies refers to this society. Making it notable by WP:N, covered in a reliable secondary source. And I didn't even check Google Scholar. But the article needs serious improvement. On a side note, why the revert war to put it back to stub or the other version? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the other comments for delete and checking a bit more of the sources, I'm not convinced that this can't be made into a an article. In fact, in think it can make a good one. Although it is far from that shape. With that in mind, I vote for the best compromise to redirect the article to the College one, and merge this info there. When it comes a time when that section makes enough size to become a full article I think we can revisit this AfD. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous version was a cut-and-paste copyvio of the society's Website. Blueboy96 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Err, no. WP:V is not satisfied by trivial mentions. Are there any reliable sources out there about the society?  RGTraynor  20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The fact that the college has archives is not dispositive; the college also maintains the minutes of the Bowdoin Student Government[3], but nobody would defend the notability of that organization. Admittedly, the Peucinian Society is mentioned -- in footnotes and parentheticals -- in several secondary sources, but only by way of acknowledging that a few historical noteworthies used to belong. Not every organization with which a person of historical interest has been affiliated is, ipso facto, notable, and there's little reason to think that the Peucinian Society had any significant impact on its important alumni (among whom Hawthorne DOES NOT number). This maybe deserves a couple of sentences in the entry on Bowdoin College. WilliamPitts (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)— WilliamPitts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete The Society seems fairly obscure and became defunct long ago. Seems fairly trivial. (Cowan50 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep as there seem to be sources to expand the article. The 19th century college literary societies were often as important educationally as anything else taking place at the college. And I wouldnt say the main student goverment there is likely to be non-notable either. DGG (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The student government has the power to make limited alterations to the college's student life policies (and, which is the government's true area of expertise, its own rules of procedure); only an ultra-inclusionist would argue for this group's notability. WilliamPitts (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As others have said: seems to fail WP:V - and even if it were verifiable, unnotable. --moof (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to failure to meet WP:V. I also consider any article to be suspicious if a sock/meatpuppet flood derails its AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A Maine-based anon IP that has contributed heavily to the page has been blocked twice for vandalism in the last several days (including just by me), suggesting article is not one we would keep in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fine to add a mention and citations on the college's article, but doesn't warrant its own article unless scholarship has significantly discussed the society itself and the impact it had explicitly, in my opinion. And I'm not seeing that, just footnotes to show that it existed or had notable alumni. That may imply that the society had some significant impact on those people, but if it did then we would be citing scholars commenting on its impact. Without that there's not enough verifiable notability for the society itself in my mind. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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.