Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Civil War 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

English Civil War Society

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. When I saw this article, I thought that it should meet the notability criteria, but I can't find significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. All the coverage I could find is minor mentions. The editor who contested the PROD contended that "minor mentions" are better than none - however, the notability criteria specifically requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, which this article does not meet.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep This is a bizarre AfD, to nominate what's probably the single most prominent of the UK's re-enactment groups. You'll be nominating the Sealed Knot next -- Oh look!  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This society is documented in detail in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepI found books, what more do you want? Ridiculous.J3Mrs (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first two citations would appear to be about re-enactment societies in general, not the ECWS in particular - although I will concede that I have not had the chance to obtain copies of them (it's currently 05:00 in the UK, the libraries I have access to are shut!). I am willing to alter this assessment if someone would provide the precise quotes from the two book here to show that there is significant coverage of the ECWS in those two sources. The other three are all on the organisation's own website, and so not independent sources. For such an esteemed/important group, I'd expect there to be lots of press coverage of them, with information about their history etc. It was founded in 1980, so they have been active during the Internet era, so where are the sources?  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep ridiculous idea to delete this page! why the need to? Instead of putting them up for deleting why not try improve them first! JMRH6 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it is a relatively new society, there are significant references to be found such as, , , etc. This, although just a footnote, suggests that there was a full article about the group in the New Statesman. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2011 (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.