Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Gimghoul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Order of Gimghoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable even within UNC. Article is imprecise and adds little, and it seems unlikely it ever will since this is a "secret" society. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as YSH.Do we really even know this exists apart from a library catalog? Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I think the actual items are restricted, so we only can trust that they are accurately catalogued and would be useful if we could see them. I don't think that is good enough for WP:V. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I accept the summary of the records, available here, for purposes of WP:V to the extent of any assertion contained in the summary (although not for anything verifiable only by going to the library and looking at the records). Furthermore, this newspaper article is a reliable source for the organization's existence and its ownership of the castle. (The article quotes Wikipedia for some points, but the ownership was verified by "a real estate agent in Chapel Hill who did some research on the property".) JamesMLane t c 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw the summary, and I'll accept it gives credibility to the existence of the order, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough depth to establish WP:N. The article is so vague at present, and I don't think the castle is notable on its own. The problem seems to be "secret" and notable are such opposites. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ya got nothing better to do? Why not list the Illuminati or the White House for AfD? I hate to get personal, but this just smacks of frivolity. SuMadre (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment is uncalled for. What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? What are your reasons for the keep? An article that has a theme of "this is known" or "this is confidential" isn't great, and all we really have is in reality a single source that isn't fully verifiable as access is restricted. You worked on the article you maybe you can fill in the blanks and remove the vagueness. The comparison to the White House is rather strange... Yellowspacehopper (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been in existence since 2005 and has been accepted as notable by the editors of WP for over two years. AfD's are typically for new/newer articles that have not stood up to the test of time such as this one: WP:AfD. This article is footnoted and cited. There is documentation of the existence of both the order and the meetingplace thereof, and this documentation is cited within the article. You state the article is not notable even within UNC. How can you even make this claim when one of the citations is an archive from the LRW Library historical records? I happen to agree with your Society of the Seven AfD, since there is virtually no documentation of that order, however, your argument of the same for Gimghoul falls on a deaf ear as this article is so well cited (and is the reason I feel this AfD based on WP:V, no less, is so frivolous). SuMadre (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the argument is for notability and not verifiability, and I might have confused things. The UNC libraries must have hundreds of archives of non-notable events by the Wikipedia definition. I'm new to AFD arguments, but is there a more general secret orders article we could merge this to?
That would work for me.Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - I just found List of collegiate secret societies has sections describing some the societies as well as just a list
and I think we should Merge to there, then the question of notability is not so acute.Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - I've put a possible
mergedparagraph on the talk page of the article at Talk:Order_of_Gimghoul#Merge_to_List_of_collegiate_secret_societies.3F. I think it conveys the verifiable information that we haveand gives us somewhere to redirect to, if that's possible.Artichoke2020 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I find it odd that out of what appears to be nearly 50 entries in the list you cite - List of collegiate secret societies, the OoG has been singled out for AfD. If you compare the Gimghoul entry with most of the other articles linked from this list, you will find this one has as many if not more sources listed therein. Do you think that every other article on this list of 50 or so should be put up for AfD for the same reasons as this one? (to wit: It is not notable since a secret society, by the very definition is difficult to verify?) I believe this quite a weak argument for an entry such as Gimghoul, which is so well sourced. SuMadre (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why the nominator choose this one. I'm here because I was working on/reading UNC-related articles. It may be that many of the other pages need deleting or merging too. That doesn't affect the status of this article.
I think it is borderline. I would favor a merge and redirect.I tried to remove the vague statements from the article and it looks better now, which addresses one reason for the nomination. Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why the nominator choose this one. I'm here because I was working on/reading UNC-related articles. It may be that many of the other pages need deleting or merging too. That doesn't affect the status of this article.
- I find it odd that out of what appears to be nearly 50 entries in the list you cite - List of collegiate secret societies, the OoG has been singled out for AfD. If you compare the Gimghoul entry with most of the other articles linked from this list, you will find this one has as many if not more sources listed therein. Do you think that every other article on this list of 50 or so should be put up for AfD for the same reasons as this one? (to wit: It is not notable since a secret society, by the very definition is difficult to verify?) I believe this quite a weak argument for an entry such as Gimghoul, which is so well sourced. SuMadre (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the argument is for notability and not verifiability, and I might have confused things. The UNC libraries must have hundreds of archives of non-notable events by the Wikipedia definition. I'm new to AFD arguments, but is there a more general secret orders article we could merge this to?
- This article has been in existence since 2005 and has been accepted as notable by the editors of WP for over two years. AfD's are typically for new/newer articles that have not stood up to the test of time such as this one: WP:AfD. This article is footnoted and cited. There is documentation of the existence of both the order and the meetingplace thereof, and this documentation is cited within the article. You state the article is not notable even within UNC. How can you even make this claim when one of the citations is an archive from the LRW Library historical records? I happen to agree with your Society of the Seven AfD, since there is virtually no documentation of that order, however, your argument of the same for Gimghoul falls on a deaf ear as this article is so well cited (and is the reason I feel this AfD based on WP:V, no less, is so frivolous). SuMadre (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment is uncalled for. What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? What are your reasons for the keep? An article that has a theme of "this is known" or "this is confidential" isn't great, and all we really have is in reality a single source that isn't fully verifiable as access is restricted. You worked on the article you maybe you can fill in the blanks and remove the vagueness. The comparison to the White House is rather strange... Yellowspacehopper (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete There's only one source that looks like it might meet the usual standards, the article in the Raleigh Chronicle [1] --but actually go and read it--it gets its information from Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, reading it again, I didn't realize it was quite so circular.
I'll have to switch back to Delete again, I'm afraid.Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It gets a lot of its information from Wikipedia, but it serves as independent verification of a key point -- that the Order of the Gimghoul does indeed own that castle. That plus the library summary is enough for me. JamesMLane t c 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, reading it again, I didn't realize it was quite so circular.
- Keep and Comment - The time people are taking up trying to delete this article could better be used by trying to find more information to put into this article. In a two minute google book search, I've already come up with another source and information to add here [2] and if someone was industrious they could obtain the directory of the order of the gimghoul mentioned here [3]. There is no reason to delete this article or merge it. Remember (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I read the pages in that Guide to NC Curiosities on google books--and I notice it carefully avoids saying there are any verifiable facts other than that the castle exists and that people rumor that there is some connection with the order. None of that makes it notable, or gives enough information to write an article. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok if those sources weren't good enough, what about this source link? Again, I found this in about 4 minutes. Could we please spend some time actually researching this before we merge it off. Remember (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We've always had that source, I think. I'm really not sure about the inventory entry, for two reasons. Firstly, anything less than 50 years old is restricted, and secondly it's mostly a listing or transcribing of primary sources (from the society itself), and we need verifiable secondary sources. If the library had third-party books, I would be happier. Newspaper clippings are mentioned, but they really need to be examined and cited directly as they could realistically say anything. However, I just looked at the electronic catalog and they say status "LIB STAFF ONLY" unfortunately. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok if those sources weren't good enough, what about this source link? Again, I found this in about 4 minutes. Could we please spend some time actually researching this before we merge it off. Remember (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I read the pages in that Guide to NC Curiosities on google books--and I notice it carefully avoids saying there are any verifiable facts other than that the castle exists and that people rumor that there is some connection with the order. None of that makes it notable, or gives enough information to write an article. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows it's been a club there. Normally, university archives keep records of all student clubs they can find. Doesn't show it was important. DGG (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am confused. So you are now arguing that this secret society is not notable? If so, is this an argument that all of the secret societies at various colleges are not notable (then we should delete everything here List of collegiate secret societies). If it is that this particular secret society is not notable, then I don't know what documentation you would need to show that it is the most important secret society on the UNC campus? Obviously there are a variety of sources that note its importance in the campus as far as secret societies go. Remember (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have found another source in yet again a 5 minute search. See here link As stated in the source: The castle was built as a meeting place for the Order of Gimghoul, a still-existing secret society of noted UNC students and alumni. Construction began in the fall of 1924 and cost about $50,000. Although the structure is accessible from Gimghoul Road, it remains a mystery, inspiring nearly a century of folklore. "It's a mystical thing that's been part of the University for about 100 years," said Roland Giduz, a UNC alumnus and Chapel Hill resident who has researched the castle. "It's part of the heritage of the University....Giduz said Gimghouls have historically been prominent students, professors and alumni. "There was the idea that it was a very high fraternity in Chapel Hill, in terms of prestige," he said. Past members include prominent alumni J.C. Ehringhaus, William Rand Kenan Jr., Frank Porter Graham and William Donald Carmichael.
- Again, can we spend more time researching this and less time trying to delete it or merge it down. There is lots of information to be found on this and I think I have shown that it is a notable organization. Remember (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to DGG's comment above, I agree that we know that the castle exists. Beyond that, we know more than "people rumor that there is some connection with the order". The ownership of the castle by the Order has been verified by a reliable source: "The castle was built in the 1920's and according to a real estate agent in Chapel Hill who did some research on the property, the land and the castle are owned by the Order of the Gimghoul, a North Carolina corporation." (from this newspaper article). Whatever one thinks of secret societies in general, most of them don't own castles. JamesMLane t c 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The DTH article mentioned above says "It's really more lore than history". Where do WP:V and WP:N stand on folklore? Is folklore, if notable, enough or does it need to be history. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The full quote that you are referring to is: "It's a mystical thing that's been part of the University for about 100 years," said Roland Giduz, a UNC alumnus and Chapel Hill resident who has researched the castle. "It's part of the heritage of the University. It's really more lore than history." But while there is a description of folklore, there are also plenty of facts in the article as well. As for the more legendary aspects of the castle, I think in general notable folklore is still notable and gets to be mentioned in the encyclopedia. Just look at Paul Bunyan or John Henry (folklore). Remember (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems most of the certain information we have is about the castle. Is the castle notable? Could we change the article to primarily focus on it, instead of the order? If so would the article be "Hippol Castle" or "Gimghoul Castle"? I have [no] objection to an article on notable folklore, though, if we can source it well. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an article is about folklore, you object to it even if well sourced? I am having a hard time following your line of reasoning. As user Remember pointed out, there are many articles on WP regarding notable folklore. The castle is a result of the Order. One carries as much import as the other. Moving the goalposts from Verifiability to Notability seems a weak tactic at this point of the debate. SuMadre (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that was an extraordinary bad typo missing the "no" out of "no objection". I think the inclination of the sentence should have made you suspicious of that. All the same you seem to be directing a near personal attack at a second author in this discussion, which is not appreciated. I have no tactics; there are no goalposts. Ultimately, it's no issue to me if the article stays or goes, but I think it's important to have the discussion to ensure the article is noteworthy and can be trusted, as it reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The discussion has already raised a number of interesting points and people have found sources and given opinions about them. If the article is kept, it will have been improved by this, and if it is deleted, then at least we know why, and we can look to remedy it in the future with similar articles. Artichoke2020 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A second editor...I'm not so sure in that regard, but I'll let you know my findings...As far as a personal attack goes, I've read and re-read the paragraph, and have come to think you are acting defensively. There is nothing that could even be construed as personal therein. If you are referring to the goalposts comment, the subject of that sentence is the tactic - not the tactician. SuMadre (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've confused me slightly, but I'm sorry, maybe I was being a bit sensitive. Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A second editor...I'm not so sure in that regard, but I'll let you know my findings...As far as a personal attack goes, I've read and re-read the paragraph, and have come to think you are acting defensively. There is nothing that could even be construed as personal therein. If you are referring to the goalposts comment, the subject of that sentence is the tactic - not the tactician. SuMadre (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that was an extraordinary bad typo missing the "no" out of "no objection". I think the inclination of the sentence should have made you suspicious of that. All the same you seem to be directing a near personal attack at a second author in this discussion, which is not appreciated. I have no tactics; there are no goalposts. Ultimately, it's no issue to me if the article stays or goes, but I think it's important to have the discussion to ensure the article is noteworthy and can be trusted, as it reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The discussion has already raised a number of interesting points and people have found sources and given opinions about them. If the article is kept, it will have been improved by this, and if it is deleted, then at least we know why, and we can look to remedy it in the future with similar articles. Artichoke2020 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an article is about folklore, you object to it even if well sourced? I am having a hard time following your line of reasoning. As user Remember pointed out, there are many articles on WP regarding notable folklore. The castle is a result of the Order. One carries as much import as the other. Moving the goalposts from Verifiability to Notability seems a weak tactic at this point of the debate. SuMadre (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems most of the certain information we have is about the castle. Is the castle notable? Could we change the article to primarily focus on it, instead of the order? If so would the article be "Hippol Castle" or "Gimghoul Castle"? I have [no] objection to an article on notable folklore, though, if we can source it well. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The full quote that you are referring to is: "It's a mystical thing that's been part of the University for about 100 years," said Roland Giduz, a UNC alumnus and Chapel Hill resident who has researched the castle. "It's part of the heritage of the University. It's really more lore than history." But while there is a description of folklore, there are also plenty of facts in the article as well. As for the more legendary aspects of the castle, I think in general notable folklore is still notable and gets to be mentioned in the encyclopedia. Just look at Paul Bunyan or John Henry (folklore). Remember (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The DTH article mentioned above says "It's really more lore than history". Where do WP:V and WP:N stand on folklore? Is folklore, if notable, enough or does it need to be history. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to DGG's comment above, I agree that we know that the castle exists. Beyond that, we know more than "people rumor that there is some connection with the order". The ownership of the castle by the Order has been verified by a reliable source: "The castle was built in the 1920's and according to a real estate agent in Chapel Hill who did some research on the property, the land and the castle are owned by the Order of the Gimghoul, a North Carolina corporation." (from this newspaper article). Whatever one thinks of secret societies in general, most of them don't own castles. JamesMLane t c 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am confused. So you are now arguing that this secret society is not notable? If so, is this an argument that all of the secret societies at various colleges are not notable (then we should delete everything here List of collegiate secret societies). If it is that this particular secret society is not notable, then I don't know what documentation you would need to show that it is the most important secret society on the UNC campus? Obviously there are a variety of sources that note its importance in the campus as far as secret societies go. Remember (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added all the references that we've mentioned, and on reflection I'm going to change my vote. Maybe it's folklore, but it's sourced and that's the important thing. I think the article has been much improved through this AfD, so I'm happy. Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep now seems well sourced, enough to pass WP:Notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Order of the Gimghoul is "secret" only insofar as its membership and activities remain closed to the public. The Society and Gimghoul Castle are a notable part of University history and tradition. The average freshman student on campus might not have heard of it, but most of them couldn't tell you the history or significance of the Dialectic and Philanthropic Societies either. I don't see anyone proposing the deletion of that article. (I've also added another reference to county land records showing ownership of the castle by the society.) --Hennap (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2008 (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.