Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Gaveston Society (2nd nomination)


 * 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. At this point there's no consensus to delete and it's pretty much a contested PROD. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Piers Gaveston Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt the notability of this society. Sources weak and/or dead. Content and list of members potentially libelous. Entire lead copied from http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2008/piers-gaveston-society.html Philafrenzy (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The current lead isn't entirely identical to Martin Frost's webpage dated 29 September 2008, but the version from January 2008 was, so it seems clear the copying was in the other direction. I agree it needs some cleanup and attention to potential WP:BLP issues, but I can't see deletion is necessary. Reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG include The Telegraph, London Evening Standard, Daily Mail and much of a chapter of a biography of Hugh Grant published by Random House. Also [//www.google.com/search?q=%22piers+gaveston%22+oxford+club+OR+society+OR+dining+site%3Athetimes.co.uk+OR+site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+OR+site%3Atelegraph.co.uk+OR+site%3Astandard.co.uk+OR+site%3Anewstatesman.com+OR+site%3Aguardian.co.uk+OR+site%3Aguardian.com+OR+site%3Aindependent.co.uk numerous other newspaper articles at least mention it]. Qwfp (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been bold and removed the table on the grounds that we shouldn't include a list of people that sources say (wrongly) take a lot of drugs and are sexually promiscuous. It could be reinstated just to include the dead (who can't be libelled) Philafrenzy (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2014 (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.