Talk:Rhode Island Philosophical Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --FortunatoV (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)this is a legit organization which has featured the best RI philosophers for decades[reply]

Potential sources[edit]

I think the strongest argument for notability will be the number and notability of the philosophers who have spoken at the society. I'm seeing additional hits on "RI philosophical society". It's going to take quite a bit of digging to establish notability here, but I can see a plausible route forward and that's sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A previous incarnation of the society existed as early as 1831. March 6th, 1831. .... Another communication was reported from the Rhode Island Philosophical Society urging a co-operation in memorializing congress to obtain from the public archives in England the documents relating to the early history of the colonies. [1]
  • Notes on the re-founding of the society in 1932.[2] This is the most substantial reference I've found so far.
  • Co-funded a conference on Berkeley in 1992.[3]
  • Background information: a philosophical society founded in Newport, RI in 1730.[4]
  1. ^ Michigan Historical Commission (1908). Historical Collections made by the Pioneer Society of the State of Michigan. Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). p. 318.
  2. ^ "News and Notes". The Monist. 45 (1 date=January 1935): 150–151. doi:10.5840/monist19354517. {{cite journal}}: Missing pipe in: |number= (help)(subscription required)
  3. ^ Tipton, Ian C.; Houghton, Raymond W.; Lapan, Maureen. "The International Berkeley Society: History of the Society".
  4. ^ Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society. Vol. 4. 1837. pp. 12–13.

Contested deletion 2[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the previous contested speedy resulted in a plausible path to potential notability (see above). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had already administratively declined the previous A7 tag based on the above claims, and now again declined on same grounds as well as being out-of-process (being obviously not non-controversial situation). DMacks (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]