Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Scotland in Britain

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. The "no crystalballing" argument is strongly rooted in policy. The "keep" opinions assert that there will be a pro-union campaign, but they are generally not addressing the "crystal ball" problem that it is not clear that it will be this campaign. May be restored should this campaign actually appear and be reported on in the media.  Sandstein  18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scotland in Britain

Keep Scotland in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for

Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Scottish politics aren't really my bag, though, so I can make no recommendation on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The original rationale, from this diff, reads thus: "This is a purely speculative page about a group which does not exist and may never exist". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rationale is highly illogical: "which does not exist and may never exist". In what way "may never exist"?? There is fervent activity going on at the moment to build up the 'No' campaign grouping, as reported in hundreds of broadsheet articles. There HAS to be some sort of 'No' campaign: it is pure common sense. Otherwise, who on earth is going to campaign for a 'No' vote? There were proper 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns for the 98 referendum, and of course there will be for this one too. The papers are absolutely full of it. Tip: Google News UK is your friend!--Mais oui! (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users may like to note the rather (ahem) sparse, and... erm... "odd" contributions of User:TBall84 before commenting on the seriousness of his/her half-cocked AFD nomination. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that there will be a campaign - but whether it's this campaign was not clear from the article or the sources provided. When I cited
WP:CRYSTAL, it was in more of the "article may be premature" sense as opposed to the "article's subject isn't gonna happen" sense. Indeed, what does not exist and may never exist seemed to fit well with that bit of the policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
As for the nominator, there was no apparent conduct issue preventing them from nominating the article for deletion, nor did it appear that the nom was part of a pattern of vandalism or shenanigans. An editor's level of activity on the site doesn't diminish (or improve) the quality of the points raised - that's what the debate is for. I saw no obvious reason to reject the nomination out of hand, and so completed it on their behalf. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Scottish independence referendum, 2014 at the moment. This is a sufficiently noteworthy event to merit a mention, and the No campaign will undoubtedly be sufficiently notable to warrant a seperate article in due course, but we don't yet know whether this will be the offical no campaign. Should this become the official campaign, or it manages to attract sustained coverage anyway, the article can be split off again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:Crystal ball says not to write articles about something that has not yet happened yet (with some exceptions of course like Olympic Games). This is a rather blatant example. BigJim707 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete All very "in theory" at the moment.If something is actually up and running going by this name then the article would be reasonable. RafikiSykes (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Mais oui, I can't see it being unreasonable to assume that it will happen, with a number of sources pointing towards it. Keep, and maybe rename if any changes come up. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This referendum and the two campaigns - for and against - are well reported in the media. --Rvd4life (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - premature. No doubt such a campaign will take place nearer the time, but the referendum won't be held until 2014 and this group doesn't even seem to exist yet. The article can always be recreated when it does and there's actually something to say here. Robofish (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a crystal ball exercise. It will be formed in 2012? Okay, when it is formed, it's time for an article, assuming that the formation is covered in the press. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Crystal ball exercise? What utter rubbish and above all bias, if that is so , then surely the
    Scottish Independence and related pages should be deleted as well because the referendum hasnt been held yet and they not even 100% its going to be in 2014... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The media has been absolutely choc-a-bloc full of stories about the No campaign for weeks now. I am utterly mystified by this non-sensical crystal ball nonsense. If you want references, there are hundreds of them in broadsheet papers, the BBC, and other mainstream media. Many of the above Delete votes contain no substantive points, and ignore the solid references already provided, eg. The Times. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keep_Scotland_in_Britain&oldid=1069000433"