Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jamacfarlane (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article has very little content and is about a tribunal which has been abolished. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently editing articles to reflect the changes brought in by the The Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. The ASN tribunal transfered into the First-tier tribunal earlier this year, so no longer exists in its own right. I recognise there may be historical interest in keeping the article, but it's a two-line stub and the history of the tribunal can be covered in the page for the new First-tier tribunal. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for embarking on these changes. I agree that the information in the history section of Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland should be in a future Health and Education Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (or part of First-tier Tribunal, or whatever?) and, if you intend copying the text, a {{copied}} template}} could be used on source and target talk pages. Rather that delete this page it would be much better to change it to a redirect to the future page but to do it now would risk speedy deletion. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jamacfarlane’s descriptions are misleading. The article was a stub but had a few short paragraphs of information, with reliable sources, until they were removed by that user with the edit summary of “tribunal abolished”. So seems odd to protest that the article has very little content, having just removed it without any clear explanation. I have restored that information. There is plenty more coverage of the tribunals, relating to activity prior to restructuring of the Tribunals. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can always be merged and redirected to the new article when it's done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I commented previously). Best to keep and later redirect. Thincat (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On reflection, I was perhaps too rash. Drchriswilliams has added more content to the article now, so I am happy to withdraw the nomination. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (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.