Talk:Hadrianic Society

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... The Society has directly requested to have a Wikipedia page created. I will edit the details accordingly so that they are better referenced to the website and other sources, as well as editing the text sufficiently so that copyright infringement will not be an issue.

It it can be left for a few days, to give me time to create pages for notable archaeologists involved in the society, this should elf-justify the need for the page. Alternatively, I will add the page as a whole to that created for Prof.Brian Dobson asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.4.8 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• That notable archaeologists are perhaps members of the society is absolutely immaterial (see WP:NOTINHERITED). --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Better hit the brakes.

First off, please do not add the page to any other page. The subjects are seperate and while this subject may warrant mentioning on that page, the whole thing shouldn't be placed there.

Second, while there are definitely come copyright issues, it doesn't appear that the page can be saved. Also, it's not up for speedy deletion which is what the response you gave is generally used for. However, it is the subject of a deletion discussion which can be found here.

Before commenting there, the main issue at hand here is notability. Wikipedia has a guideline called WP:NOTABILITY that outlines what is to be included in the encyclopedia and it doesn't always line up with what may be typically considered "notable". To save you from having to read through a huge guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are parts of the guidelines that the Hadrianic Society may satisfy, warranting inclusion. So, for instance, having many notable members doesn't necessarily prove notability under the guideline but as it's a guideline, the argument still may be accepted by others but no one is obligated to ignore current guidelines and declare the subject to be notable.

The easiest way to prove notability is to provide proof of significant and independent coverage from reliable secondary sources such as news sources, which is essentially what you'd read about at WP:GNG. WP:ORG has some other ways of proving notability that you can read there.

As for having a few days to assess notability, the deletion discussion will last at least 7 days and at that point, if there's a consensus, the article will either be kept or deleted. If there is no consensus, the discussion may be continued or closed as no consensus at which point the AfD will be closed without prejudice.

Lastly, please be mindful that you don't violate any copyrights. If you do wish to use content owned by another source and have the ability to give permission to WP to use that content, you can find out how to do that at here.

I hope this helps. You can contact me here or on my talk page if you have any questions. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

A list similar to List of historical reenactment groups covering 'groups, societies and bodies' interested in Roman Britain (and equivalents for any other time period) - 'details and links' etc. Collectively such groups might have sufficient notability for WP even if individually they do not. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)