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. John254 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added another reference (to an item on a BBC Radio 4 documentary). Coverage in Google News searches isn't a good enough criterion for deletion: for example, the London Mathematical Society currently only has one match, and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest deletion of that article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep is an active society. As above. No reason to delete. Couldn't quite believe this has been nominated for deletion. Oliver Keenan (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important and active learned society.Ncox (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to last 2 respondees. If you are so strong about keeping it, perhaps some reliable sources to back up your case? Michellecrisp (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an active society with members in a number of different countries, which holds regular meetings and publishes a peer-refereed journal. It's devoted to a relatively obscure topic, yes, but that shouldn't make it any less deserving of inclusion. It's been featured in a BBC documentary, one of its council members has just been elected to the Society of Antiquaries of London (and the society is mentioned in the announcement here), it undertakes and encourages serious research, and has published a number of books on the subject of academic dress. Mere failure to appear in a Google News search isn't adequate grounds for deletion (lots of otherwise valid societies also don't show up) - can you provide a stronger rationale? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nicholas said It's an active society with members in a number of different countries, which holds regular meetings and publishes a peer-refereed journal. That in itself does not satisfy WP:ORG. The availability of significant third party coverage is a better determinant of notability. Of course, if people find enough sources, then the outcome of this discussion will be obvious. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the society does satisfy the criteria for noncommercial organisations in WP:ORG - its activities are international in scope, and its existence is verifiable by independent sources (including the BBC, the Society of Antiquaries of London, both well-respected significant sources; also one of the society's meetings was reported in a French newspaper a couple of years ago - I'll try to find a reference). The only argument for deletion presented thus far is a failure to show up in a Google News search - which isn't in itself enough, because lots of other established and valid organisations don't show up either. I recognise the importance of winnowing out articles on organisations with questionable relevance or verifiability, but this isn't one of those organisations. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:24, 26 November 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.