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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constantian Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Political group with no assertion of notability, according to the ibiblio reference they publish an "oddball newsletter" "on a very irregular basis". Tagged as needing references for the last 9 months. Was nominated for deletion in September 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society) and kept, but no keep argument was provided there which considered Wikipedia policy, and I don't believe it meets our current standards. No particular improvement in the article since September 2006. --Stormie (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, per nom ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See the references at this Google News archive search --Eastmain (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One of those requires a subscription, another pointed me to a list of my local libraries, a third was about this article. The remainder don't seem to me to amount to sufficient coverage in reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep that's what I found, a few passing mentions, no more. Certainly couldn't find any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE) --Stormie (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:The program segment on National Public Radio's Morning Edition seems to represent significant coverage. Visit this page and click on the word "Sample" just below "CONSTANTIAN SOCIETY" NEWSLETTER ABOUT MONARCHY (552 words) – January 9, 1991, MORNING EDITION", which is probably enough to confirm that the item represents significant coverage, even though you would have to pay to see the full text. On the other hand, perhaps an interview of 552 words doesn't quite count as "significant coverage'.

As for the list of libraries related to another item, remember that if you have a library card from a participating library, you can access the accessmylibrary.com database free of charge. --Eastmain (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep which might make the balance a no-consensus. That the Phila Inq is unusually hard to access doesnt make it less of a RS, though its very frustrating. That and NPR are enough. DGG (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:RS. Admittedly, these guys are spinning their royal wheels in regard to their mission. But the article meets Wikipedia standards on notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Four "references" are presented. I attempted to look at all four. The first (Steinfels, NYT) says of this society: Nearby, on the sidewalk outside St. Ann's Church on 12th Street, Juan Arribalzaga was passing out fliers for the Constantian Society, a monarchist group with headquarters in Pittsburgh. And that's all it says. The second and third (Ferrick, Philadelphia Inquirer; NPR) cost money, which I'm not prepared to pay. Can somebody who has paid please describe them? (Yes, there is some talk above that the NPR piece might be significant, but there's no desciption of it other than its length.) The fourth one was recently "retrieved", we're told; but no link is given: googling for it suggests that it's something about Charles Windsor, not about this society. So what's the significant coverage again? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (revised to make more sense 05:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Readers like stuff like this but it fails WP:ORG, no hint of meaningful, independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Of the sources I can access, the mention of the society appears to be no more than incidental (basically, the NYT and the UPI article -- I have trouble finding *any* databases that have the Inquirer and NPR that far back that aren't behind a paywall, which, given that I'm using the database accesses of two major universities, is pretty incredible). The NYT article, as Hoary has said, is a one-liner. The UPI article has an offhand mention of the Constantian society in the context of a story about Prince Charles' marriage. I turned up several more offhand references in Lexis, split between obituaries and a short blurb quoting, ironically enough, our last deletion discussion of this article. So, going on my best guess here, given that good sources are apparently lacking, is that a fringe political group advocating monarchy with a grand total of maybe 4-6 offhand press mentions over 4 decades of existence (several of those in obituaries of its members), is probably not a notable organization. Of course, if anybody could get at those Inquirer/NPR sources, we might see differently. RayAYang (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the sort-of hard-to-find background information Wikipedia is good for. From a little Googling around, it seems to be they are often quoted on the topic of monarchies and succession. In Google Books I found something called Radio Reader, a book about broadcast propaganda during WWII. Aparrently there was a debate over a document whose author claimed to be the king of Poland in exile, and the author quoted the Constantian Society that there was "no heir to the Polish throne". I'd also like to add that there may be 1970s press coverage that's not indexed electronically. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Not a really notable institution, and its position is definitely not mainstream in the US. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion but seems to have survived the death of its founder, which suggests somewhat more real than one might think at first. Can anyone provide the substance of the offline sources? - Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 5 August 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.