Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction History 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  03:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Construction History Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability, no independent secondary reliable sources. If the academic journal is notable, then that may justify its own page - it does not make the CHS notable by relation. Per WP:ORG, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable," and "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." --Iamozy (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will research the notability question.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added three primary references to international conferences at Queens College, Cambridge. This is an international society with annnual lectures on the history of construction.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DThomsen8, thanks for adding sources. However, I am confused as to how you concluded that the subject is notable. Per WP:ORG, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Iamozy (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - This AfD should be in Architecture and Civil Engineering and England projects.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to pass the academic notability barrier which is pretty easy to pass. I think there was some specific rule about SCOPUS which means just the magazine alone passes. I also noticed that a mention of this Society is at History of construction and has been there for quite the number of years. I changed the hyperlink there to a link to this article. I also added a note about the Construction History Society of America to this article since they seem easy to confuse. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Magoo, can you point to me specifically how this subject passes the academic notability guidelines? If only the journal passes notability, then this should be moved to Construction History (journal). Iamozy (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The society passes the GNG on its own and additionally their journal passes the notability test for academic journals of being abstracted and indexed in selective databases. The most useful way of presenting this information for our readers is in one article. I see no point having just the journal without an article for the organisation that publishes it. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable organisatiion that meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all the above. AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The society isn't generally notable because most of those references are either from the organization itself or from Cambridge, which had been sponsoring the annual meetings. That said, I think there's a net positive to keeping an article about such a society. We really ought to have an SNG to presume notability for academic journals and their societies although I know the community isn't keen on SNGs. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Chris, would it be a bad idea to propose a move of this article to Construction History (journal), which currently redirects to this page? It seems like this article would me most appropriate there. --Iamozy (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be a bad idea because, in my view, and that of the majority of the commentators thus far, this society is independently notable. If, when the AFD is closed, the closing is other than a 'keep' then the move can be readdressed. Just Chilling (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see the society have an article that mentions the journal than the other way 'round. It looks like there's a consensus to keep so it won't matter. I agree with Just Chilling that the move should not be addressed until the AfD ends. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:52, 31 May 2016 (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.