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]

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]

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]
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]
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.
More