Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society for Court Studies


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Society for Court Studies

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

Seems to fail the significant coverage requirement. A GNews search reveals only a dozen hits; more importantly, these divide between a North American version and a British version, making that coverage even less significant to the extent it exists. A search for "The Society for Court Studies" yielded less than 500 hits, again split between the two groups. Tyrenon (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that if this page is deleted, then the related magazine at The Court Historian should also be considered for deletion. Passportguy (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I would say that the magazine seems to be far more notable, and the publishing organization is the comparative footnote here. In some sense, if the Society here is notable, it is because of the magazine, and not the other way around.Tyrenon (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly disagree. The number of hits on Google is not a valid indication of relevance (and God forbid that it ever will be). In its field, The Society for Court Studies is a well-known and respected institution, established by such renowned scholars as David Starkey and Simon Thurley (try Googling them!). Its journal the Court Historian is a scientific and peer-reviewed journal and can be found in academic libraries around the world. Draeymae (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This process is actually very simple : Simply provide reliable references and I'm sure editors will reconsider their deletion request. Passportguy (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I see a couple of good sources added (other than the organization and its journal), I'll pull the nom.Tyrenon (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have already added one reference and will look for more in weeks to come. Thank you for not deleting the article.Draeymae (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment At the very least the journal and the society article should be merged. Their combined notability might be enough for a weak keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep - A Google search doesn't bring up much but a quick look around Lexis Nexis brings up articles about the society's works from a few different law journals and History Today and a whole load of articles in the UK Times and Independant talking about their work. Seems like it would meet notability. (I can link people to the individual articles if they don't have Lexis, just ask!) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm afraid I don't quite see what the problem is. There are a lot of societies listed in the Wikipedia category of learned societies that contain far less information than this article does, and surely fail to yield thousands of hits on Google (such as the Cuvierian Society of Cork, for example). However, this does not necessarily mean that these societies are unimportant or irrelevant. The article on the Society for Court Studies cites reliable sources and is objective. Seems to me this ought to suffice. Draeymae (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The History Today article is sufficient evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2009 (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.