Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Pacifica House

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pacifica_House

edit
  • This article is a hoax. The history of the organization, that is, created from two debating societies, does not square with the university's protrayal of the demise of those societies. According to the University: "The Franklin Society was organized in 1824, a year when such a large class entered that the two existing literary debating societies, the Philermenian Society and the United Brothers Society could not accommodate enough of the entering students. The membership was also augmented by the acceptance of honorary membership by Henry Clay, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and other notable personages. Ten years after its establishment, in 1834, the Franklin Society was dissolved, its library of several hundred volumes was turned over to the College Library, and in 1847 its members were elected in equal proportions into the two older societies." Furthermore, the organization is largely unmentioned today. One reference was made in the Brown Daily Herald, but the College Hill Independant article, mentioned in this article, cannot be located. If a more precise reference could be provided, that would be helpful. While a search of the University records finds the society mentioned ONCE among university documents, that reference is questionable, and I am currently awaiting replies from those authors. Finally, a whois search reveals that the "official" website is registered to "Joe Pacifica" with a fake phone number. Micahross 04:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article does not represent reality, delete it. Anthony Appleyard 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the article does represent reality, delete it anyway. See this report from the College Curriculum Council which discusses a report issued by Pacifica House on grade inflation. Nevertheless, a student organization which exists at only a single school is generally non-notable, and this one appears to have problems with verifiability of information about it, too. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I managed to find that very article. Rereading my post I find it was somewhat ambiguous. There is ONE mention in a paper and ONE in among university documents. I am trying to track down the origin of the hoax now, but few people are being helpful. I was directed to a member of the organization, but have yet to hear from him. I think someone created an organization to write a position paper for the university. Micahross 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned in the Skull and Bones article. Not sure if it's real. I don't think it should be deleted if it is.
  • Pacifica House is definitely real. It has multiple mentions in the Brown Daily Herald, has its website, and is mentioned here in several other entries here. Seriously, it is a secret society...probably shouldn't have tons of references, considering it's...well...secret. Definitely shouldn't be deleted
  • Comment: If there's no consensus on whether this is a hoax, maybe the discussion should go to the article's talk page and it should stick around until there's a good answer. Friday (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been able to get a copy of the publication cited by the Brown link. However, there are difficulties verifying both "Pacifica House Trust" and "Brunensis, Ltd." The "official" site is registered to the former, but the latter holds the copyright. Neither is registered as a charitable trust with the IRS. However, this would not be necessary if the trust had no tax ramifications. If the trust accepts charitable donations, this is a tax ramification. There have been a total of TWO mentions of Pacifica House by The Brown Daily Herald. Moreover the university archivist has never heard of the organization, but they could provide me with the papers of the Franklin Society. If Pacifica House had evolved from that organization, I would suspect that they would have kept their minutes and acceptances of honorary membership -- one of these was an 1824 letter by Thomas Jefferson and another was a letter by Horace Greenleaf Whittier. (Sadly, the signatures have been removed.) Those are valuable. On the other hand, I have found one alumnus who claims to be a member of Pacifica House. Finally a careful reading of their website has revealed an oddity: on the history page, a picture of the "charter" appears. (http://www.pacificahouse.org/images/Charter.JPG) This is not a charter -- the text reads: "Providence, May 16: Sir -- Pardon a stranger for occupying a moment of that time which I know to be inestimably precious. I must beg to offer you my sincere thanks for your last proclamation as the chief magistrate of the nation. You call upon all your fellow citizens to render unto God thanksgiving for his recent mercies and to offer to him (sic) as individuals and societies ... prayer ... He will ... our ... efforts with security, which he alone can ..." This a letter, not a charter. Frankly, the matter is out of my hands. I can only provide a finite amount of evidence that this is a hoax. I am also a little reluctant to take unsigned avowals of the legitimacy of Pacifica House seriously. Micah Ross 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. It may well be that we can't determine for sure the status of this without doing our own "original research". This is a problem with verifying people or organizations by their own websites. Friday (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't verify how legitimate the information on this site is, but I can verify that the Pacifica House group exists. I don't know details about the organization, but I do know that it's members regularly meet and it is an invite-only society.
  • Delete--inherently unverifiable even on the extreme offchance that it's true, as Micahross's efforts (thanks for that) demonstrate.
  • (First post from 66.31.44.201) Pacifica House does exist, whether all the information on the Wiki page is true is unverifiable. The question now is: should a Wiki page containing information, much of it unverifiable, on a given entity be deleted on the basis of lack of confirmation? Highly unlikely this group is the creation of just one person--if so then it's an expensive way to be vain--registering the website, etc., and making sure the campus newspaper mentioned the group--but it seems plausible a lot of the "historical" information is just lost in time. Histories have a way of sounding better with every telling. "Deletion" as the ultimate price of unverifiability would implicate a lot of Wiki's pages. but why don't we just edit the actual Wiki page and tell everyone that all this stuff is highly unreliable and not to drink the kool-aid?
  • (Second post from 66.31.44.201) Theoretically ALL secret societies on Wiki are unverifiable. duh. they're secret. but seriously, there are a couple options here. the first is to delete the hell out of this page. if Wiki does this, then so too shoudl be considered every other collegiate secret society. or else we should start conducting research to _verify_ their claims, and if they cannot be verified, delete them, or at least information we don't know for sure: skull and bones claims a long list of alumni, can we verify this? the other option is to let it alone. maybe. the third option is to put a disclaimer like the skulls have now--the article has info that can't be verified. there are a lot of suspicious bits of info on this wiki page that can't be confirmed and that is a FACT. but let's be objective and apply the same principles here to other college society pages. there's far too much vanity.
  • Okay, it seems people have taken an interest in what I have written. Fine. Let's cover a few bases. I can understand the removal of a personal name, but the removal of my research and evidence is fraudulent. (Be forewarned -- this history function of the talk page is a powerful tool.) Also, if you choose to remove a personal name, why not just replace it with a string of Xs? Also, I asked earlier for the sake of clarity that people sign their contributions. Two separate contributions from the same IP does not a consensus make. On 12 October, 2005 I had written "Well, I followed up the information returned from the whois search. It was registered with eNom, Inc. and is hosted at ixwebhosting.com. It is worth noting that www.pacificahouse.info was registered by XXXX X. XXX for the organization "Pacifica House." This is the ONLY person I have met who claims to be a member of the organization. pacificahouse.info is hosted by ixwebhosting.com. Frankly, I'm saying "mystery solved" on this one. The thing never existed beyond XXX X. XXX, who probably authored the article. I suspect he also stopped by here to defend it. Micahross 12:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)" I really hate an intent to defraud. Deleting the fruit of my research has made this personal. Moreover, there are some things about Skull and Bones that can be verified: they have a building, people can -- and have -- watched who goes in and out. For many years they had a page in the yearbook at Yale. Their trust is registered, The Russell Trust, was registered with the IRS (although I think they may have changed the name by now.) In several unsigned posts, it has been stated that Pacifica House indeed exists. In some ways, this is true. The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion also exists. I have a copy of it. By the same token, the "member(s)" of Pacifica House are probably limited to those here who defend this hoax. --Micahross 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically a debate between TWO people--"Micahross" and some anonymous poster! Why anyone in the world should care about "Pacifica House" and whether 100% of its information is verifiable escapes this user. Why anybody has accumulated this much information about such collegiate organizations that have no relevance outside their institutions is also puzzling. In any case: to the WIKI board: if you delete this website, please do not delete it because of one rather long-winded individual who claims that he cannot make unsecret a secretive organization. But if you let it alone, do not leave it be because the benefit of the doubt. It seems we need some rigor in verifying claims here, but this includes claims of people who have come into a website with an agenda, as well as claims of organizations that seem extraordinarily hard to make concrete. Can somebody else besides "Micahross" and "unknown poster" step forward with information? We are hesistant in believing one person on either side.
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Society_of_the_Pacifica_House&oldid=1138776367"