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 delete. No action on Civil War Roundtable ; if you want that deleted, open a new AfD for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Civil War Roundtable[edit]

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

Delete Long-ago declined prod. There is no significant coverage in sources to indicate this organization meets the notability guideline that applies to clubs and groups. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the SIGCOV for this. I do have questions whether they possibly maybe meet WP:AUTHOR. I might be persuaded if the article is improved, but in the current state it is a definite no.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a fair amount of local coverage on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website, e.g., Cleveland Civil War Roundtable marks 500th meeting (2013). Our article identifies "The Plain Dealer's media market, the Cleveland-Akron DMA (Designated Market Area), [as] one of the Top 20 markets in the United States" which is regional per WP:AUD. The linked article notes some fairly high profile speakers ("Past guest speakers have included authors Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote and Noah Andre Trudeau.") so it is possible there is coverage of these talks in pre-Internet newspaper archives. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- a NN historical society. If it published a journal, I might argue otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete would be my vote. It does publish a journal, The Charger. Here is a link to its archive, going back more than a decade: http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/charger.htm. Submitted by Elendil's Heir.

The question to ask here - is The Charger cited by other publications? If yes, this might grounds for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked older newspapers on newspapers.com but there is no coverage of the society itself, merely 19 different mentions of people who are members of it. It exists, it has members but I cannot find any other coverage of the organisation itself. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find sources from it, but nothing substantial about it, which makes writing an article somewhat difficult. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - I can't find any significant media coverage. Indeed, Civil War Roundtable should probably be deleted also. That article says that "The oldest such group in the United States is The Civil War Roundtable of Chicago based in Chicago, Illinois, and the second oldest is the Milwaukee Civil War Roundtable.", while the CCWR article says "The Cleveland group is the second-oldest Civil War roundtable in the country, after Chicago's." When factual inconsistencies arise and there's no coverage to settle the dispute, that's a telling sign. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 18 August 2017 (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.