Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves


 * 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. W.marsh 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves

 * View single debate
 * View single debate

Nom - Absurd claims point toward hoax (Popes and presidents as members?); Even if this isn't a hoax, it's not an especially notable organization. It is, in short, a local dining club. Rklawton 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC) New Hampshire. It does not rely on a single newspaper article, though there is only one local paper that is online. I happen to be far from Dedham and won't have access to the Historical Society or print-only newspapers until Christmas. --Briancua 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - from their own website For a one-time ten-dollar fee, anyone may enroll him- or herself, or a friend for a lifetime membership, and create an affiliation with an historic organization, and the ancient Town of Dedham. This explains the "membership" and demonstrates why the membership roll full of famous people isn't notable.
 * Strong delete keep - unless of course someone can come up with some "evidence" to support this organization's inclusion in wikipedia. (20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Edit: Following Briancua's comments I am willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt and vote keep). ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is a whole article on Anti Horse Thief Associations and this is the oldest one of its kind. It was notable enough for Robert Ripley to try and gain admission, and one has to imagine that he had seen some pretty crazy things.  Alos, according to the Notability guidelines, which are themselves under dispute, the article has to be verifiable, which this is through the newspaper and historical society sources.  Simply because an editor has not heard of the organization does not make it non-notable.  Briancua 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added several more sources, including one at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln and one at the University of California San Diego Briancua 18:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both those references point to the same document - the organization's constitution. This does not demonstrate notability.  Our local PTA has a constitution, too.  As far as Ripley is concerned, should we then include articles on every organization to which he belonged or attempted to join?  Is that Wikipedia's standard for notability?  Oh, and the Ripley claim is found only on their website, so it isn't verifiable (yes, I know its mentioned in an recent article, but the language is clearly copied from the website).  Rklawton 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Will your PTA's constitution end up in major research libraries on the other side of the country 125 years from now? The fact the this Society's did does indicate notability.  Also, the website was written by the clerk-treasurer of the society, Robert Hanson, who is also the unofficial town historian and author and editor of a number of books about Dedham, including "Dedham 1635-1890: Examples of Things Past."  The man who literally wrote the book about Dedham history during the time the Society was founded has credibility.  --Briancua 20:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Research libraries are crammed with hundred year old documents of things gone by - and most of them are not especially notable. The fact that most of the article's information comes from a single source, the self-appointed town historian, does nothing to add to the article's credibility.  Indeed one might construe this as POV pushing since this subject certainly hasn't gained the attention of historians elsewhere.  Wikipedia is not the place for the obscure or arcane. Rklawton 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think this single, self-referencing edit claiming popes and every recent president as a member of this organization pretty well illustrates Briancua's lack of commitment to creating an article meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia.  We report verified facts here, not some spurious organization's claims to self-importance.  By self-referencing, I mean that the author of the citation claims membership to the organization and is repsonsible for its website therefore most of the information in this article.  Rklawton 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rklawton, as I pointed out on your comment on the talk page, there *is* a source provided for these claims other than simply the Society's website. It was written by Sarah MacDonald and published in the Daily News Transcript on on Wednesday, December 3, 2003.  You can find a link to the story here, on the talk page, or, most importantly, in note #3 in the article itself.  I might also add that on the Knights of Columbus article, which is featured, the claim that John F. Kennedy is a member comes from that Order's commissioned history.  The is *no* evidence at all provided for the claim that 17 US presidents were freemasons or that any of the kings, dukes, presidents and prime ministers listed are members of the Rotary Club.  This Society isn't nearly as well know, to be sure, but it provides two different sources.  As to my "lack of commitment to creating an article meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia" you may wish to take a look at my sandbox, where I am compiling a history of Dedham and already have nearly 50 distinct sources.  I'm having fun with Wikipedia, but I am certainly taking it seriously.
 * I'm not familiar with the KoC, but I do know that considerable evidence exists from presidential biographies and autobiographies, etc, regarding presidential Masonic membership. Unlike the organization you describe, many different and verifiable sources exist for each claim.  And unlike the organization you describe, members can't simply pay $10 and make some famous person a member without their knowledge or participation.  Your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.  There is simply no comparison, hence this nomination.  The one source you cite is simply a local newspaper relying on the organization's own website and membership as its source.  Though this may demonstrate that the organization exists in some form or another, it does nothing to demonstrate the organization's notability or suitability for inclusion here.  Lastly, you made quite clear the lack of seriousness you give to your efforts here when you repeatedly attempted to insert the creation date of this non-notable organization into the events section of the associated date article amidst the great and oft world-changing events in history:  example #1, example #2.  You did this claiming in your edit summary that its membership was notable (presidents and popes) - yet knowing that all members had to do was pay $10 to elect any famous person into its membership roles.  Not only does this make the organization not notable, it makes it dead common.  Heck, any garage band could do as much if it chose.  Your assertion that this "membership" made them notable robbed you of your credibility in this matter.  Rklawton 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Any society for apprehending horse thieves that exists in the year 2006 is notable, especially if it has been at least decades since any horses were kept in town. In addition, getting "more than 200 proud members... [making] a virtual who's who of political and business life" to shell out $60 to attend a meeting makes the society notable.  I might also add that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that do far less to establish any sort of notability, to wit: Knights of the Golden Eagle or Knights of Da Gama.  There is more than one source listed, including one telling that the Society was being lectured on in
 * In reading this organization's website, it's clear that its current purpose is membership dining and entertainment. That's hardly notable.  Representing it as a "society of apprehending horse thieves (as done above) is deceptive.  The only similarity between this organization and the one that hunted horse thieves over a hundred years ago is its name.  Rklawton 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a policy on sources that require having a paid subscription to a newspaper's archives? I have no idea what that article actually says about the group.--Dmz5 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Newspaper archives are verifiable, so that shouldn't be a problem for Wikipedia. The fact that this article relies so heavily on a single, local article does constitute a significant problem when it comes to establishing notability.  Rklawton 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Anti Horse Thief Association. -- Chondrite 20:59, 6 December 2006 (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.