Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Secular 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. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 12:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Secular Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author historically acting in bad faith, promotional and highly subjective with little or no objective sources that are directly related. also nn in my opinion. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are plenty of sources coming on - Do you not consider The Scottish Parliament coverage of the Organisation to be significant? In what way is it subjective - It states exactly what the organisation is about! Mgordon42 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Have included some relevant comments below from original talk for discussion. My own comments:  This page demonstrates significant political involvement (Government Website Links) and discourse with the wider community (News and Current Affairs Links), Significant membership, politically engaged; not non-notable. RoslinGenetics (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment : The following two comments below were not posted by these users here. They were copied here from Talk:Scottish Secular Society. Please see my note below in this discussion for further clarification:

 End comment . Northamerica1000(talk) 21:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Than editor's past record is no criterion for nominating an article for deletion. Plenty of refs and notability. It may be young but it is a clearly established organisation. Not overtly promotional in tone.Why has this been nominated? I would suggest a quick withdrawal of the nomination by by the AFD nominator.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable organization.  Received significant coverage in The Courier, the BBC, Daily Record, and The Herald.  Clearly satisfies WP:ORG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would suggest to any passing admin that it isn't worth hanging this out for 7 days and this AfD should be closed as per snowball.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Important Note - Per this page's revision history, the !votes above under the names User:OldChemProf and Mgordon42 were not posted at this AFD discussion by these actual editor. See the following diff page. The comments were copied to this discussion from Talk:Scottish Secular Society. Furthermore, User:RoslinGenetics added in the word "keep" to both !votes: diff page. Due to this, I have stricken the word "keep" in those two comments above, and denoted the matter above. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note responding to User_talk:Northamerica1000 mea culper I originally had some original text detailing that these were quotes from the quick delete talk of the same page removed by subsequent edits. I hadn't realized that the words "keep" were actual votes as a new user and thought these were summary statements, as such I shouldn't have ascribed this to their text. Thank you for the clarification on my talk page I will advise the individual users accordingly who should be given the opportunity to make their own representation. RoslinGenetics (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your considerate reply. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and I was the one who removed the "" tags that RG added thinking they were a formatting errors. RG did originally highlight that the comments had been copied. Sorry! Realising my error, I've now put those comments in a quotation template to make a clear distinction between those comments that were actually posted here and those that were copied here. Apologies for any mix-up that resulted from my clean-up. Stalwart 111  23:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, a few days ago I would have said kill it with fire as a puff piece BUT even though the editors seem to have a conflict of interest WP:COI I think that enough 3rd party independent references have been added to the article over the past day to establish that within the spirit of WP:ORG for a non-profit national organisation (the region being Scotland which is kind of a tiny country anyway) it is representative and notable enough in this area of secularism. Fromthehill (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Fromthehill Thank you for your link to the WP:COI newbie and have updated my user page with respect to any Conflict of Interests. (Getting into more general editing on WIKI) Not the creator of the page and not in receipt of anything from the society just believe in its core principle. Would love an experienced editor to get their hands on the page to ensure objectivity. There are lots more references and paperwork to support statements. In the process of making more of this publicly accessible to substantiate comments. RoslinGenetics (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, Well referenced, satisfies WP:ORG having significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:12, 25 October 2013 (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.