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 first article and redirect/merge the second into it. —SMALL JIM 14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for the Study of Medievalism

[edit]

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

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

Academic organisation written up by its president with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added the journal published by this organization, declining the PROD, as they are intertwined in notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. While there is a formal COI, the article is neutrally informative. Some not entirely trivial and as far as I can see independent coverage can be found in this scholarly article: Maria de Lurdes Rosa (July–December 2009). "As «missas do Infante» no Padrão dos Descobrimentos: colonizar com a Idade Média, colonizar a Idade Média" (PDF). Revista Universidade Rural. Série Ciências da Vida. 31 (2). Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro: 141–164. ISSN 0104-7264. Retrieved 2011-10-15. (in Portuguese). I strongly suspect that with some effort enough can be found to clearly establish notability. There can be little doubt that Leslie J. Workman is notable, and he is notable precisely for the school of academic medievalism he founded in the form of a network of medievalists that became this society, and for founding this journal. If all else fails, do not delete but merge and redirect to Leslie J. Workman#Achievements (for the Society) and Leslie J. Workman#Studies in Medievalism (for the journal). --Lambiam 13:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the related articles on their publications into, as we normally do for most relatively minor societies. There have been a whole group of articles on each of them submitted, and it makes no sense whatsoever. As a complex, it amounts to promotionalism. As for choosing the merge target, the society is a better choice than just the individual, and would be except in the cases where the individual actually writes all the content of all the publications, which is not the situation here. . DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and redirect/merge per DGG's suggestion. There does seem to be evidence of a case for notability, if not an iron-clad one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to International Medieval Congress, which appears to have real solid sources and not be a WP:COI tangle. Conceivably break them out into separate articles after they've been further developed. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2011 (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.