Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Griffith 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 keep. Nominator is happy to keep and sources have been suggested and added. Canley (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Griffith Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article appears to fail the WP:DEL7 notability check. I was unable to find any reliable sources mentioning this group, and the current links are either primary or non-reliable. Moreover, the primary tag has been on the article since 2008, which does not in itself prove anything, but does suggest that this is not a new problem. Jlevi (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. I don't know if this is a proper place for me to comment. If not, I would be glad of advice of a proper place.

I don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy on such matters. I would be glad to be advised on it.

I don't recall exactly, but for a decade or two I have attended annual meetings of the Samuel Griffith Society. There are perhaps 100 members present at each meeting. The meetings are held in the capital cities of the states of Australia, and in Canberra, the national capital, in rotation. They meetings last two days, with papers presented during the days, perhaps 45 minutes each, including discussion. The papers are by judges and scholars who are interested in the Australian Constitution. I think the papers are substantial and notable. Each year, the papers are published in a volume of the Society's proceedings. Each member of the Society receives a hard copy of each volume. Some thirty volumes have been published.

I attended a special general meeting of the Society in Melbourne on 12 March 2020.

To me, it would seem absurd to delete from Wikipedia the article on the Samuel Griffith Society. I am at this moment unable to provide secondary sources on the topic, but that may just mean that I don't read them if they exist. I will try to follow this up.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, Jlevi, the Samuel Griffith Society has been referred to regularly in Australian media. See eg: The Canberra Times from December 2019, referring to its receipt of tax deductible gift recipient status (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6546429/politically-favoured-think-tank-gets-tax-deductible-status-and-vegan-group-loses-it/), The Australian from February 2020 referring to the Society in the context of debate about judicial appointments in Australia (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/judging-the-high-courts-justices/news-story/6c819b096c60180d761d0ca9ab38b2eb), and The Monthly referring to a speech given by former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at a recent Samuel Griffith Society conference (https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/dominic-kelly/2016/17/2016/1471402108/privilege-and-its-discontents). Perhaps the article may need to be updated, but there does not appear to be any lack of relevant secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.37.133 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm paywalled on a few of those sources, so it makes it hard for me to properly evaluate their implications for notability for the organization (WP:ORGCRITE), but this makes me much more confident that there is sufficient material to establish notability. Though I cannot do so at this moment, it should be much easier to make an argument to retain this article, since the sources just need to exist (WP:NEXIST). No worries if this is too much work for you, but it would be very useful if you could find the two best sources possible to verify claims of notability. Thank you so much for adding these statements! Jlevi (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete In short, I could not find any significant IRS about the subject. However, there are many mentions of the subject in the context of academia, politics, and social policy, etc. It would be possible to build an article, possibly better than a start-class, but it would require significant work and such perhaps could be argued to border on SYNTH or OR. If someone can find a couple of good IRS about the subject I could be convinced to change my !vote to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi all, this has been brought to my attention and I am happy to do some work adding additional content and sources to the existing article. As has been established by the previous discussion, there are numerous secondary sources that refer to the Society and its ongoing activities, establishing its notability in Australia as an organisation led by both a former High Court Justice and a Vice President of the Commonwealth Executive Council. I am a new user, so I will need some assistance with some of the terms referred to by Aoziwe (WP:IRS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) - I couldn't find any references to these terms in either the AfD or general Wikipedia glossaries. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks XavierBoffa (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XavierBoffa I have linked the abbreviations above so that you can follow the links. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now made some initial edits, attempting to incorporate the above discussion and adopting the model of similar pages such as H. R. Nicholls Society. I will make further changes based on any feedback/guidance. XavierBoffa (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as nominator) Based on suggested sources and changes made to the article already. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.