Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire


 * 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. clpo13(talk) 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability outside primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's published >100 volumes of material on local history over a period of nearly 150 years. There are plenty of references to them in catalogues in various libraries and archives, they have a worldcat ref.  I'm not sure that half a dozen stories about it in the Warrington Guardian would be good evidence of notability.  The article has a template asking for improved refs, and that's enough. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not matter how much they have published, what matters is do RS give a damn about it. Also catalog entries are not enough to establish notability, only existence. The Warrington Guardian might do it, but only might. Press releases or trivial coverage would not be enough. Please read wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reputable sources do not have to be online. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No but they have to be cited in the article and verifiable. So what are these sources?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The sources do not have to be cited in the article to establish notability. The question is whether they exist. WP:ARTN Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but we have to be able to verify them (see wp:v and wp:n]). Any claim not sources to an RS can be removed, If I were to remove all such claims how much of this article would be left?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Not only are there articles in digitised newspapers in the British Newspaper Archive about the record society, its publications, and the important work it was doing in preserving historical documents, reviews of its publications in scholarly journals also comment on the quality of the editorial work and the published books, and the value of the documents beyond the local area. More information about the history of the society is also available in newspaper articles (eg the presidents - William Fergusson Irvine was president from 1923-1958, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I ask again to include these sources (and no adverts do not count). Also coverage has to be in depth. Please read wp:nSlatersteven (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled as to why this Society's page should be deleted when nobody seems to feel the same about others (e.g. Bristol Record Society, London Record Society, or any of the others with links from the Text Publication Societies page), which are remarkably similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercotgreave (talk • contribs) 08:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Petercotgreave it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The effective way to argue for "keep" is always to add reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews and listings of books this Society has published going back over a century are easy to find in news archive searches. The books it has published are cited in scholaraly journals, books - even though such titles as The papers of Sir Richard Grosvenor, 1st bart. (1585-1645) are not bestseller material.  User:Petercotgreave has added enough sourcing to the page that I think it can be kept.  What I am certain of is that deleting articles on a historical society which has been publishing reputable books for a century and a half is not useful to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2019 (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.