Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Constitutional Commission


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__.  Sandstein  19:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Constitutional Commission

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article has no references, with few non-primary sources when googling this topic (one of which being this article), therefore does not meet WP:NOTABILITY with the article providing little value even ignoring this. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * When searching, keep in mind that a lot of the results are for a completely different Scottish Constitutional Constitution set up by the Scottish Parliament, which is far more notable than this one. This potential confusion is another reason why this article should be deleted. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Afd is not cleanup and the fact it has no reference is not a reason to sent it to Afd. It is established structural legal body in Scotland and is completely notable.   scope_creep Talk  15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article does not refer to the legal body, just a non-notable think tank! SoThisIsPeter (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Think-tanks tend to be notable and Afd is not cleanup.   scope_creep Talk  16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But this one isn't notable? The problem with the lack of any references here is that there are no reliable, independent sources to be found to demonstrate notability, and the content is not otherwise useful. It is not an article that can be cleaned up without using primary sources. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right-oh. I will take a look and see if ferret out WP:THREE references for it. So far its been assumptions and actual fact-facting has been missing. It could be dross. It is on my watchlist now.    scope_creep Talk  17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of coverage by extant sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics,  and Scotland. Owen&times;  &#9742;  18:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - the generic name does make searching difficult, but I was unable to find any independent in-depth coverage in Scottish or UK sources. A couple of passing mentions, but nothing more. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.