Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine Association

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. slakr^\ talk / 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Association

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

Sounds like a worthy organisation, but not with substantial coverage in reliable sources. Might be worth a redirect to Royal Geographical Society. Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Geographical Society#History. While modeled on the African Association per this reference ([1]), it appears to have never really got off the ground, never meeting after April 1805. [2]. There are some decent references, such as when RGS published its collected papers in 1834 ([3]) so some mention at the RGS history section, seems appropriate, at least to me. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ditto above rationale. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It predates the founding of the Royal Geographical Society - so any content related to its activities would be off-topic for the Royal Geographical Society article and so a merge would be unsuitable. Sources indicate the body existed, and a lack of content in the article is not an automatic reason to delete the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, I understand (although don't agree with) your arguments against a merge, and I appreciate that a lack of sources in the article as it stands does not prove that it is not notable, but why are you voting 'keep'? How do you feel this organisation meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria? Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gut instinct told me it will be notable. And a few sources I have found since indicate I am probably right, like: "This paper relates to a unique pioneering British association established in London in 1805, for the ‘philosophical, physical and biblical’ study of Palestine/the Holy Land. The short-lived Syrian Society/Palestine Association (PA) adopted the model of the African Association, founded by Sir Joseph Banks in 1788 for the promotion of travel and discovery in Africa. The PA was a predecessor of two important British scholarly societies: the Royal Geographical Society (RGS, founded 1830) and the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF, founded 1865). We first consider the historical, religious and scientific contextual background to the period, following the Napoleonic Wars in the Ottoman Empire and the revival of Christian religious beliefs and biblical criticism in Britain and Europe. Based on primary archival sources not previously studied, we then analyse the declared objectives of the Association, its founders, membership, structure, mode of operation, interrelations with consuls, traders, bankers and organisations (such as the Levant Company, the East India Company and contemporary missionary societies), accomplishments, and possible reasons for its failure. We discuss its closure in 1834, the transfer of its funds to the newly founded RGS, and the later establishment of its ‘daughter in spirit’, the PEF in 1865." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00404.x/abstract Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure. It is not very well known and didn't achieve very much, but there is a enough literature on it to make a usable article. There are many brief mentions in good sources. It was not part of the Royal Geographical Society, so pointing it there would be simply incorrect. I don't agree that it was "integrated into the RGS" as the article says, either. The source says that its assets were donated to the RGS after it had ceased to function; not quite the same thing. Zero^talk 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:51, 4 September 2014 (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.