Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadrianic Society

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrianic Society[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a nice and friendly society, however, there is no evidence of any notability. The references are links to the homepages of similar societies that don't even mention this society, to an obituary of the founder mentioning this society in passing, to the society's own website, and to an item in the British Library catalog. None of this shows that this passes WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This appears to be a specialist academic society, publishing an academic journal of record, comprosing the proceedings of an annual conference. I am encouraged in this view by its having two professors as founders and having operated for a considerable period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say I feel a bit bad about this one, but I can't find anything substantial outside of the Society's own material. dci | TALK 02:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't received significant coverage. A mention in a magazine is not enough to demonstrate notability. James086 ^Talk 10:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have remodelled this whole page and added better references to account for the notability of the Society in published academic material. Additional links to academics and professors are progressive and ongoing. These changes should be voted on as a result. 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC); Zakhx150

Comment Sorry, I appreciate your efforts, but I don't see anything in the changes that you made that makes me change my mind. PLease also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking in more detail, I see even less. Some of those "references" have nothing to do with the society. Other things are just name-dropping without a shred of evidence that these people ("benefiting from the membership and speakers, which included many of the leading academics of the Northern British Universities") had anything to do with the society. NOTINHERITED doesn't even come into play: these people have nothing to do here. I'm sorry, but our edits are misguided at best and borderline deceptive. --Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we should keep this and watch it for a while longer. Their conferences are regularly listed in the academic conference calendars and by the established archaeological learned societies (ref: http://www.ras.yas.org.uk/page183.html) and appear to be attended by some senior figures. It also figures on a number of academic blogs (eg. Jonathan Eaton amongst many other). I think more information might add to the understanding of the Academic landscape and 'schools' in the North of Britain, which would be useful for outside students trying to understand the arguments and development of ideas in this field, which is very partisan. I believe that would qualify under relevance and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanGaskProject (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — RomanGaskProject (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I still say Keep -- The recetn edits have considerably improved the page. Current archaeology is surely WP:RS. I understand the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. However, I would suggest that an academic society's notability is enhanced by its attracting academic lecturers and having leading academics as founders. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, have another look. Most of the claims are actually not about the society but about the department at Durham and most assertions are not backed up by the sources given... --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I very seldom differ from Randy, but this is somewhat of a special case; amateur societies in the UK have had a major role in local history and archaeology, The founders are notable -- this doesn't prove everything they do notable , but it implies a considerable degree of significance, since the society's purposes are so very closely associated with their notable work. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Setting aside the various academic arguments and looking at this solely from the perspective of organizational notability, WP:NONPROFIT finds notability based on (a) national or international scope, and (b) independent references for verifications. The independent references are supplied by inclusion of the society's works in various journals / academic listings. The scope of the organization is here focused on a particular historical time and place, but the subject is not of merely local interest, nor is the membership; so this would appear to me to qualify under national or international scope. The organization's longevity is also a factor, and here the organization is 40+ years old. --Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (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.