Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine Association (2nd nomination)

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) –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Association

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

Last AfD was 1 delete, 2 merge to Royal Geographical Society#History and 2 keep, so overall no consensus. I hope that after new references have been added, and after not attracting a large number of comments last time, we can establish consensus now, especially as this has been left with a notability tag since Alynna Kasmira added it 7 years ago. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the history section of Royal Geographical Society, where it can be a sourced sentence, I looked at the previous AFD, and one editor objected on the grounds that this Association predates the Royal Geographical. I see that as no hindrance to merge, many fading institutions merge into thriving institutions that postdate them. This article contains a real tidbit, that soneone who stubbles upon the Association might want to look up, making the redirect useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a few sources, including an article from The Geographical Journal devoted entirely to this subject. It in certainly notable in its own right as the first "scientific" foray into the region in the modern era. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Harrison2014, Boleyn, Tiptoethrutheminefield, Zero0000, who I believe represent all the editors involved in the previous AfD. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article with Oncenawhile's additions make it perfectly fine and useful by itself. Regarding the RGS, I believe that the current wording "the Palestine Association was integrated into the Royal Geographical Society" is factually incorrect, which I will argue on the talk page. Zero^talk 23:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As in the previous AfD I see no valid reasons to delete it. Acceptable sources exist proving it existed. Obscurity is not a reason to delete. And as I said in the first AfD, because its existence PREDATES the founding of the Royal Geographical Society, any content related to its activities would be off-topic for the Royal Geographical Society article and so a merge with it would be unsuitable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if it was in some manner iterated or brought under the RGS umbrella, it was sufficiently distinct and important under its own name. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 3 April 2015 (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.