Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Society


 * 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 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitution Society

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not certain that this organization meets the notability criteria, and the article itself lacks independent, reliable sources that would verify the group's notability. I tried searching using google, but there seem to be a number of organizations that use this name; I can't verify the importance of this particular group. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was unable to locate any sources of information about this organization independent of the organization itself that would verify the organization's notability. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Undelete I don't know what kind of search you did, but there is only one organization with that exact name. There is an American Constitution Society, and a Society for Constitutional Information from the early 1700s in England that was sometimes referred to that way, but there should be no confusion. The Society is most noted as a publisher, so most cites are to its publications rather than to the Society by its name. We consider an author notable when there are many cites to his writings, even if his name isn't mentioned, so it would seem reasonable to consider a publisher notable for the same reason, especially when cited indirectly by many Wikipedia editors. It also organizes and conduct events, but each such event is known by its own name. Many notable organizations operate that way. You have to backtrack a few steps to find their names.I also object to such a sudden deletion without more of an effort than you apparently made, and while the original author is still in the early stages of writing the article, and while he is asking for others to join in and contribute. I know about the sandbox but it should be possible to create stubs and make development of the article a community effort. Uncoverer (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Undelete" is not useful, as this article has not been deleted, and won't be unless the community agrees that it is about an organization that does not meet the notability criteria.  You may be confusing this article with the one that was speedily deleted, not because of a notability problem, but because of a copyright problem.  What's needed are reliable, independent sources, like magazines, newspapers, or online journals, that discuss this organization's importance- if you could add two or three such sources, there'll be no need for deletion.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The most convincing evidence of notability that I am aware of so far are video or audio recordings of public events at which the Constitution Society was noted by name. They occurred in the Nov. 20-22 timeframe and are not yet all online for someone to verify, but a few have been put online: Let's make a deal here. Keep pending the availability of the evidence online, which I will watch for and note when it arrives. In the meantime, I will encourage others to look and cite. Uncoverer (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * C-SPAN video archive.
 * Federalist Society audio recording, video to follow.
 * Federalist Society audio recording, video to follow.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Where is the substantial media coverage? Are there two good stories about the subject in there? I'm having trouble finding them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I consider them notable, at least as the online publisher of the [Liberty Library http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.html], a very valuable compilation of PD sources--regardless of the political views of those who have done the compiling. Possibly there may be sources on that, to re-orient the article a little.  DGG (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a publisher it acquires its notability from its publications, which are notable and in many cases unique, and which are often cited throughout Wikipedia. It also appears that cites to the Society are made to its domain constitution.org, rather than to the organization name, perhaps because that is easier for people to remember, and it seems to encourage that practice. It also seems to encourage the formation of local groups that function like chapters but don't adopt "Constitution Society" as part of their names, and are highly autonomous. Bracton (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.