Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

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. ✗plicit 13:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article exclusively relies on primary sources, and there's only three. I did a search for news sources about the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, and couldn't find a single one that wasn't either a tabloid article, only mentioned the society tangentially, or both. The society doesn't seem to be independently notable. Cortador (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are numerous sources on JSTOR. See here for one example.--User:Namiba 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Socialist Lawyer is the magazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers" - it's another primary source. Cortador (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly meets WP:GNG. Very well-known and notable society. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability needs to be backed up by something. Just stating that something isn't notable won't do. Cortador (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be GNG. Didn't you notice that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - neither the Society's website nor its magazine are independent of the subject. Didn't you notice that? Cortador (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. The society has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in GBooks and GScholar. This would be an example from GBooks. If a society was formed in 1930, you have to look at history books and periodicals, and at historic periodicals and books. It is not enough to just look at recent news sources. James500 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very visible within English legal circles, more than adequate sourcing to satisfy the GNG, eg active in the abolition of the death penalty in the UK (see Politics of the Rope (Arena Books, 2012), pp 90-91) or more recently their rejection of the current Labour Leader. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (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.