Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland

Points of interest related to Scotland on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Scotland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Scotland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Scotland.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to United Kingdom.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland/archive

• See also:
  Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board; Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Scan for Scotland related AfDs Scan for Scotland related Prods Scan for Scotland related TfDs

Scotland

List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters

List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peatfold Burn

Peatfold Burn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's rare a google search returns no results, but here we are. Given this, and the fact this is merely a geographic formation, this fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment A look at the reference given shows that the correct name of this feature is Burn of Peatfold. Using that produces a few hits, though I would tend to doubt its notability nonetheless, as for comparison we have deleted articles on German bachs of which we could only determine that they existed. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches for either term get few Google hits and many of the results seems to be for things around the burn rather than the burn its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glen

Robert Glen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only reference for this stub biography of a footballer is a database entry, so this stub no longer satisfies

• Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. GiantSnowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all

  WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just

  don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good to know that a few sentences in a few books is now significant coverage. "Left back Bobby Glen from Renton had several international honours. Strong and clever, he was a favourite of the supporters and was recently at the top of his form." If that is sigcov then GNG should be scrapped. Dougal18 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would strongly agree with User:GiantSnowman's and User:Jmorrison230582's points. I think it would be odd for us not to have an article about a Scotland international who clearly is covered in published sources. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has been updated, clearly notable player, easily passes
  WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – The Paul Smith's book It already seemed to be enough for
  WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Passes
  WP:GNG, also has fine sources that attribute significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Responding to Jmorrison230582, the article didn't say that his team won national competitions when I nominated it for deletion, and the nomination was not absurd. Govvy is correct that the article has been updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps I should have said that the
  significant coverage in seven days, but perhaps that should be implied. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Boc Maxima

Boc Maxima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. Did a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boards of Canada: Found nothing on the album. Not too surprising given "limited to 50 copies world-wide, which were handed out to friends and family" and it being two years before their first major release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Or redirect to Boards of Canada discography#Limited-only releases. There's certainly no compelling reason to keep the article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect probably makes sense. Just not enough coverage of this album that I can see. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Typhoons

St Andrews Typhoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to Redirect to the University of St Andrews article if no such sources are proffered. Ravenswing 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

the general notability guideline. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @AusLondonder and @Ravenswing for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way.

Point #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the BUIHA and the team's page at phoons.net - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there.

Point #2: Relative to other team pages in the BUIHA (and to applications of the guidelines in general), the Typhoons are a strong pick to have their own page. Take, for example, the London Dragons which was originally my template for the start of this article. The entire page is summary, roster, awards, retired numbers and what universities are involved. The sources are all the University page, the website and the BUIHA website. Yet, I agree with Wikipedia's editors that as it remains up, it's a worthy article to keep in place in the history of British ice hockey even if it may need more sources as the note shows. While other pages like Oxford University Ice Hockey Club carries far more history and therefore sources, I find it exceptional to compare a team founded in 2011 to the team page of the most historic ice hockey club in Europe. Despite being founded so recently, they still have a shockingly deep history to the team, which brings me to the next point.

Point #3: The Typhoons are an notable and important subject in British university ice hockey as well as in the University of St Andrews culture and history. When I started this, I figured I'd make another team page to fill one of the missing spots on the

BUIHA teams list. Yet thanks to the pressure for secondary sources, I found this team is extremely notable in university life in St Andrews - and has an extremely interesting (albeit tragic history). According to University of St Andrews, there are 11,280 students at the school right now, so there is on record just under 15% of the entire school (1500 people) attending Jonny Wookey Memorial Game. While it may not have the historical importance of something like Ice Hockey Varsity Match, attendance that high shows it is a huge event for the students of St Andrews and Scotland as a whole. The only one that seems to even come close in St Andrews would be The Scottish Varsity

. Considering the difference in popularity between ice hockey and rugby in Scotland, the fact that the number of people interested is this close is an interesting fact in itself. The game is worth archiving on its own but is especially worth inclusion within the context of a team page that is so important in university ice hockey as they won the championship just 2 years ago.

Point #4: There is still significantly more content to go through. All of the sources I have posted have been from "official" newspapers and sources online, but I have not gone through the years of articles on the experience and history written by the St Andrews student newspaper "The Saint". Even right now on their front page is a new article about the experience at Jonny Wookey this year where they lost. I'm pretty busy right now (I fit in the edits and this piece in a bit of free time) but by Friday I should have a complete page with all secondary sources out there - and a pretty perfect page for Wikipedia if you allow it to stay up.

With all of this, I feel there is plenty of evidence that this article is suitable for conclusion and meets the general notability guideline. Please check out the original article with the new additions. I hope these changes (and new sources) will convince you that this article is worth inclusion. As for me, I'm going to keep working on this page when I have time and I'll be voting Keep for this page. Fastfads (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources are exclusively non-independent (websites of BUIHA, Phoons, St Andrews, and St Andrews student newspapers) or fail NOTNEWS (news reports on a missing student). JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaan Zainab Mazari

Imaan Zainab Mazari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the
  WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance.  samee  converse  02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG: BCC, TFT, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents), she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/

WP:BASIC. X (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Switch Scotland

Switch Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [1]. Most of this article consists of unsourced

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Scotland related pages including deletion discussions
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]