Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle 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 no consensus. There is no consensus about whether the society is notable enough. If one discounts some "keep" arguments that do not make reference to our applicable criteria, one might see a "delete" consensus, but I'm applying "when in doubt, don't delete" in this case. Sandstein 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Chronicle Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, I'm nominating this article separately. Article was written by Doric Loon (talk · contribs), the president/leading member of the "Medieval Chronicle Society" (see discussion on other AfD and at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle). Seems to be promotional, and can't find any evidence of notability, even taking into account our current low threshold. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current version of that is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this, but unfortunately, I have to be objective. Delete. THis is not a notable organization at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. With all due respect, I disagree on the "not notable" nature of the Medieval Chronicle Society. How can a scientific society with members from all around the world be "not notable"? How can a society that has organized five international conferences be "not notable"? Several volumes of the "Medieval Chronicle" (a very notable journal on medieval history and history-writing) have been edited under the auspices of the Medieval Chronicle Society. Is that still "not notable"? How about the massive "Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle", which contains contributions by members of the Medieval Chronicle Society? I am terribly sorry but I do not think that fits the description of a "not notable" organization. Wikipedia has entries on almost any minor, lower-league football club around this world (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Olt_Scornice%C5%9Fti or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_Town_F.C.), but an important scientific organization is put on the chopping block? I kindly ask you to reconsider. Euro

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too. And this is a genuinely academic group. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform and educate, so we've traditionally been rather tolerant of genuinely academic things. I wonder whether this might be one of the rare cases when our notability guidelines could be set aside. I also note that the Medieval Chronicle might be a notable journal in its own right (see WP:SJ).
Even if there's no consensus to ignore the rules in this case, I'm still opposed to deletion on the grounds that none of the nominator's remarks require it. A conflict of interest, or promotional content, aren't reasons to delete. They're reasons to rewrite. A lack of notability isn't a reason to delete either. It's a reason to redirect (in this case, to the List of historical societies).—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not something that's notable even among medieval historians. Certainly don't see why we should set aside our notability policy to accommodate some self-promotion. PS, the slowness of these two deletion requests is quite appalling; in hindsight it'd probably have been better if I'd deleted myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Appalling"? Have I missed some reason why there's a terrible rush?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just tediously long drawn out for such a clear cut case; some of us have better things to do than watch these cases for weeks on end. Back in the day AfD was better than this ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's very drawn out and that both the speed and quality of commentary at AfD has declined noticeably since I started editing. I don't think using CSD to replace AfD is a terribly good answer, though.—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deacon of Pndapetzim, it seems to me that you are leading a (very) personal crusade against this society--and I really don't understand why. Several users on this page have noted that the Medieval Society is in fact a well-known society (you might not be familiar with it, but that is an entirely different business). By the way, the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle is cited as the authoritative work on the subject in Albrecht Classen's Handbook of Medieval Studies (p. 1720); the Chronicle Society is noted on the previous page. Personal crusades are not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia, and that is why I reiterate my support for keeping this article. You say that this case is clear cut, yet the only things that seem clear cut are that a) you ignore the importance of the Medieval Chronicle Society (as a doctoral student in medieval history, cf. your wiki profile, you should be happy that such a society exists); 2) you are taking this issue far too personally. --Euro (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your own 'vote' for a keep will almost certainly be ignored, as will any personal remarks you choose to make against contributors here; this will apply to other involved anons, so this is a giant waste of your time. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) [For the record the above anon is another contributor to the Encyclopedia connected to the society]Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim, this is becoming a bit ridiculous. You have still not argued (argued, not just stated) convincingly why the EMC and the MCS are "not notable" in your opinion. Major experts in history and historiography such as Peter Ainsworth, Godfried Croenen, Sverre Bagge, John Friedman, Eva Haverkamp, Edward Donald Kennedy, Richard Burgess, F.H.M. Le Saux, Peter Damian-Grint, Estelle Doudet, and many others are part of the MCS and have contributed to the EMC, and yet you keep claiming that the MCS/EMC are "not notable"?!? As most readers have probably realized by now, this has become your personal battle--and this is not what Wikipedia is about. Enough is enough. --Euro (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1]You seem to be wounded by these nominations, but don't take this as an offense to your book. "Not notable" here means that it doesn't comply with Wikipedia inclusion thresholds, outlined at WP:NOTABILITY. It simply hasn't gotten the third party reliable source coverage necessary to merit inclusion as an encyclopedia article here. It doesn't mean that the work isn't notable in the real world sense you'll be more familiar with, nor does it mean your book isn't worthy of respect (by contrast, all Ann Coulter's book are "notable" in the Wikipedia sense even if they aren't worthy in the real world sense). Ask Doric Loon to explain it to you. Your book looks like a wonderful resource. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, Wikipedia should keep the article "Ann Coulter" and delete the "Medieval Chronicle Society"? Hmmm. "Convincing" as ever... --Euro (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a specialist society it is of course not widely talked about, and Medieval Studies tend to be online less than many fields. Nevertheless, it has 12 hits in Google Scholar, one of which leads to several references in the Handbook of Medieval Studies which I consider enough to establish its notability (multiple references in reliable secondary sources). I have added another reference to the article. Finally, on the question of conflicts of interest, I think we should welcome experts to write on the subject they know best, so long as the information they add is accurate. Francis Bond (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those represent Wikipedia content printed by a third party for commercial profit; one briefly mentions the society alongside other minor organizations such as the "Harting Committee of the Dutch Universities for Dutch Students of English"; the rest are for a journal supposedly related to the society. These may or may not prove the the "Proceedings" are notable (marginal at best); but not the society. Yes, we welcome experts who wish to use Wikipedia to contribute material, not simply to append their own works as 'references' for promotional purposes. If any 'expert' wishes to contribute material, they are as free to whether or not we allow Wikipedia to be used as their advertising site. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is really time to wind this thing up. The vote would appear to be four “keeps” (S Marshall, Francis Bond, Euro, and me) and two “deletes” (Deacon of Pndapetzim and, ambivalently, Dennis the Tiger). Of course this is not just a vote, and it comes down to quality of argument, which an admin has to decide. Here of course, Deacon of Pndapetzim cannot act as an admin, as he has argued in a partisan fashion and you cannot be both a litigant and a judge in the same dispute. I have asked other admins to look at this and bring us to a conclusion.

I don’t want to drag this out, but there are two things I need to comment on. First, the CoI issue, since it hasn’t been explained on this page. I started this article, although as a member of the society (at that time I held no office in it) I had a potential conflict of interests. Likewise the article on the encyclopedia, in which I led the team, though most of the writing in that work is not by me. I checked the rules, which say that in these cases CoI does not debar me from creating the articles provided I am up-front about the CoI and neutral in my editing. I clearly met the former criterion and did my best on the latter, though it’s for others to say if I succeeded. At any rate, if there is bias in this article, you are welcome to fix it: I am not going to insist on content which anyone has a problem with. That SHOULD make the CoI aspect history.

The other thing that I have to comment on here is that I am deeply troubled by the treatment of unregistered users on this page (and that by an admin!). Unregistered users are important to Wikipedia. It is NOT our policy to “ignore” them, let alone patronise them or be rude to them. And disparaging a user for being an “anon” when he has signed with his real name (as Euro did before he was badgered into getting a username) and therefore is more easily identifiable than most of the regular users here... well, all I can say is that that is a curious form of anonymity. Please let’s have no more of that, it is not worthy of the level of discourse we seek in Wikipedia.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that the article makes no assertion as to Notability that is backed up by Reliable Sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't appear notable. bobrayner (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything, either in the article or this AFD, that suggests this passes WP:ORG, WP:N, or WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , and merge the article on the encyclopedia into it. It would have been preferable not to start two articles. But the conferences are notable, and the encyclopedia is being published by the best known publisher in the world for this sort of topic, which adds to the notability. . There is a good 3rd party source, [2]. which lists the encyclopedia as one of the key sources in the field. The article should be here tho, as it can include other things the society does besides the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to draw attention again to my remark above, when I said "A lack of notability isn't a reason to delete either. It's a reason to redirect (in this case, to the List of historical societies)." I hope the closer will read the "delete" recommendations above in this light.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (and merge in the encyclopedia info here) per DGG's rationale: I'm not as sure as xe is about the notability of the conferences but on balance I lead to keeping, since it does seem to a marginally notable organization. As a second choice, merge/redirect to List of historical societies per S Marshall.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to verify the extent to which this Society even exists as a scholarly Society, rather than simply a term for branding the activities of User:Doric Loon and some colleagues. In modern academia there is a plethora of semi-fictional incorporeal 'entities' which brand groups of scholarly activity. Individual postgraduates often come up with such brandings and perform activities under them for periods of time. We know its president is very keen and active giving the brand superficial notability on the internet (and is asking us to stretch our notability criteria to accommodate his babies); what troubles me about keeping the Society article is that I have found third party evidence of this society's institutional existence and established notability elusive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of P continues to willfully ignore the fact that this scholarly society has members from all around the world, that it has organized five international conferences (the next one is in July, in Pecs, Hungary), that several volumes of the "Medieval Chronicle" (a very notable journal on medieval history and history-writing) have been edited under the auspices of the Medieval Chronicle Society, and finally, that the Encyclopedia is one of the products of the MCS. So, no, it is not difficult to verify the extent to which this society exists as a scholarly society. What is truly "incorporeal" is, I'm afraid, the argument for the alleged "lack of notability".--Euro (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wikipedia notability is defined in terms of citations, and the society is not the kind of organization which gets written about in the newspapers, so there is a point there that can be debated. But the idea that there is no society is just silly, and DoP can't possibly believe that himself. Which rather raises the question of what is HIS CoI. Euro and I have been very frank about where we stand (to the point of revealing our real-life identities, which means we have more to lose than the reputation of our wiki-personae if we are dishonest here). Everyone else who has written here has been short and factual. But DoP has made more comments than everyone else put together, he gives the tone of crusading, he has used rudeness, personal comments and sarcasm, he has taken a bullying tone to newbies, he has jumped opportunistically from one tactic to another as though he cares less about the argument than about winning the war - so what is his agenda? Some grudge? Nobody who contributes in this tone is just an honest seeker after truth!

This society has existed formally for 12 years, has 380 members, has organized 6 conferences with between 100-300 participants, has a website financed by the university of Liverpool, has a peer-reviewed journal with - what? - seven volumes of around 350 pages, has produced an 1800-page encyclopedia written by 450 scholars which DoP himself described as "a wonderful resource", and has among its members some of the biggest names in medieval literary studies world-wide, a few of whom have been named here already. That makes it a medium-sized learned society. All of that is easily verifiable. I really don't mind whether the community here decides that that is notable enough for Wikipedia; I have nothing to gain from including the article. I made the article available in good faith but won't be offended if the community decides we can't keep it. Our notability rules are problematic here, because a society like this is really only verifiable from its own literature, and I recognize that difficulty and have certainly NOT asked for the rules to be stretched. But I do resent the kind of news-of-the-world distortions which are coming from this user. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't there some appropriate banner to add, to the effect that the article as it is now is based on the society's own material? If yes, just apply it. Bazuz (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Bazuz (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the third-party significant coverage that means this meets the notability criteria. Most google scholar hits are either from the conference reports of the society or tiny mentions that the society was formed, with no other mentions. If this remains, we will see a proliferation of other barely notable medievalist societies (i.e. Haskins Society, etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.