Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orkney Antiquarian 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orkney Antiquarian Society

From the people who brought you Orkney Beekeepers' Association (see the AFD). A local, short-lived, non-notable group. Was speedied, but restored on the grounds that "notability asserted" -- despite the fact there isn"t a breath of notability asserted anywhere in the article. Calton | Talk 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, semantic debates about "learned societies" versus "clubs" aside, this whateveritis doesn't assert notability anywhere. BigHaz 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A learned society focused on regional archaeology that published at least 15 years of proceedings and reports held in the British Library and other major research centers [1]. Why wouldn't we want to keep this? Should be expanded to include a discussion of their work. --JJay 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The British Library is the main UK legal deposit library so it holds just about everything, so its not really a good indicator of notability or respectability. There are other legal deposite libraries too at major research centres (not clear which ones you're talking about) such as Oxford and Cambridge Bwithh 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I was talking about major research libraries such as the New York Public Library [2], Harvard University [3] and The Newberry Library [4] (links may time out). Their publications are also held by Oxford and many other University libraries that seem eminently respectable. --JJay 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That their publications are available at some research libraries says very little about whether the group that produced them was notable, then or, especially, now. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ...But does indicate that this was not a speedy. As does the fact that the Society is still being cited in bibliographies today [5], [6]. Your edit warring, failure to use the talk page and flagrantly uncivil edit summaries [7] thus seem completely misplaced. Please review WP:CSD and WP:CIV. --JJay 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as subsection into new article Archaeology of the Orkney Islands (I volunteer to create a basic stubby article about this topic). The Orkneys are a notable archaeological site in the UK but currently no article seems to cover this archaeological topic or the modern organizations associated with this. It would make better sense to put this short-lived group into a context that explains the significance of Orkney archaeology which includes their modern equivalents e.g. The Orkney Archaelogical Trust[8]. If in time, the subsection becomes very long, it can be spun off as a separate article. I would also consider an edited merge of the articles of persons associated with the antiquarian organization. Bwithh 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or rename to Archaeology of the Orkney Islands. Bwithh's suggestion makes sense. I think it's important to recognize, though, that the work of learned societies is worth recording, and that they are generally of greater notability than the local archery club. As well, the edit history on this article is worth noting. Some of the edit summaries show a pattern of incivility. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• And some of the edit summaries show a pattern of empty hand-waving and irrelevant wikilawyering. Know anything about those? --Calton | Talk 07:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA... BigHaz 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stong keep. A learned society that published fifteen volumes is an assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 06:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• A learned society that published fifteen volumes is evidence of access to a printing press. I'll note also you didn't claim it as evidence of actual notability, merely its assertion. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Perfectly fine little article on a learned society. Sure, it could be merged somewhere, but I see no eason why it needs to be, and there really is no reason to take this to AFD. Calton has also been edit-warring to put a speedy tag on this, which I find highly inapproppriate. up+l+and 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this society is notable enough. As well as publishing scholarly articles, the society was involved in helping preserve newly-discovered sites, e.g. at Rennibister, and recording new finds. The society's publications are part of the archaeological record - this article tells people a bit about them. They took an interest in non-archaeological history too - so I'm not sure about a merge.--HJMG 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Insufficient content here to warrant a separate article. Eusebeus 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Now expanded a little. --HJMG 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, very nice job. --JJay 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable, notable enough to make it an interesting read. Kudos to the expansion. Ifnord 14:43, 15 August 2006 (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.