Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Norse Society in London


 * 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 of the debate was keep. –  Rob e  rt  03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Norse Society in London
Delete as not notable. Very small (annual turnover never more than GBP 14,000), non-controversial, charity. Also delete re-directs Anglo-Norse Society, and Anglo Norse Society David Woolley 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) '''NOTE: AfD notice was never applied to article. Relisting on December 19 to follow procedure.''' howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Old charity organization. -- JJay 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable. Has existed since 1918 and seems rather unique which itself is notable. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way is it unique? There will be many charities (and other non-profits) with similar aims but different countries.  --David Woolley 07:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt "many" and I further doubt of those few have dual royal patrons and have existed as long. -- JLaTondre 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem in challenging that is finding a list, but my guess would be about 50% of countries have them and most would be of a similar age. They tend not to make the news.  As noted below, patronage tends to go with age and non-controversiality. --David Woolley 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Semi-old society with royal patrons, seems notable enough. u p p l a n d 09:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Royal patronage is quite common for UK charities; my concern is that accepting this will open the flood gate to large numbers of minor UK charities (I have the impression that the original Afc nomination was for PR purposes) --David Woolley 10:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We need all notable charities here. Like this one. You have made no real attempt to show why it's NN. -- JJay 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is not notable because it is very small and makes no claims, even on the full web site, to have made any real impact on the world. Given its age and the countries involved, I might have expected it to have been important in the second world war, but there is no mention of this.  I can understand that the inclusion threshold for not for profits might be much less than for a for profit, but the turnover of this is less than that of a father and son company that could have a similar age.  (I feel that WP:CORP needs expanding to give special treatment to not for profits, if this is notable.)  Wrt to the royal patronage, from looking at the UK government sites on this (sorry I mislaid the URL), being old and not too controversial are exactly the things that get patronage, so patronage doesn't really add to the case. (That source suggested about 800 patronages each for the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, so I would guess about 3,000 to 5,000 for the whole of UK royalty.)  Incidentally, it was only registered as a charity in 1972, although I don't know when the register started.  --David Woolley 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why controversial has anything to do with the issue. You do not need to be controversial to be in an encyclopedia. Have you done any research on this group? Because I find it hard to believe that they have done nothing for the last 87 years. -- JJay 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The intention of the AfC is irrelevant. What matters is the article itself. --JLaTondre 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per JJay. Stifle 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that. When I first tried to save it I collided with a rename, and I had to fix up the the names on the listings and must have forgotten about the article itself.  I shouldn't have been too thorough in trying to improve it before knocking it down! --David Woolley 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Suggest withdrawing this, the tag isn't going to generate any new 'delete' votes. Kappa 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree, the way it is going, especially as the only way people will find the article at the moment is likely to be the Afd listing, but I think one implication of this is that there needs to be a new guidline for charities (and the US equivalent of not for profit educational and scientific organisations) as this would have been thrown out as both a local social club or as a for profit business. As it is, I'm not sure why one shouldn't dump half the UK register of charities into Wikipedia.  (For those not familiar with the UK charity concept, charities basically provide benefits for people other than those that provide their funds and, as a result, once registered, get special tax treatment.  The Wiki Foundation could be a charity in the UK.)  --David Woolley 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The significance of this type of organisation cannot be measured by turnover. Calsicol 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the various comments above about history and notable achievements very interesting. If you give me a couple of weeks for research I will write an article.  No doubt someone amongst you will want to re-format it.  As I understand it the Anglo-Norse web site is basicly a newsletter style site for current and potential members rather than a history of the society.  Tim G 23:00, 22 December 2005


 * 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.