Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declaration of Calton Hill (2nd nomination)

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. And, for future reference, a more complete and detailed deletion rationale helps other editors better understand what problems exist with an article and can be more persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Calton Hill

AfDs for this article:

[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)

GNG and verifiability RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United Kingdom, and Scotland. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to the Scottish Socialist Party, was part of their platform and didn't really cause anything to change. Blip on the radar. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was decided last time this was nominated for deletion that those notable people from the Scottish arts who attended added notability to this event. It was an event in the history of republicanism in Scotland that was attended by notable people and was notable for being in opposition to the monarch's involvement in politics. It was also something I wrote many years ago as my first article I started on wikipedia so it would be personally disheartening to see it go, but the reason I wrote it yet remains : it was a notable event that had, before I wrote it, no previous mention on wikipedia, so I created the article. This notability of the event remains and as such the page should be kept. Boleslaw (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was poorly referenced and had been written around a declaration that was issued in 2004, but the phrase has also been used for political statements issued in 1981, 1992 and 2023. I have also added some information about this along with some references to support this additional information. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing now demonstrates GNG for the 2004 event (BBC + Observer), as well as for the concept as a whole. I think this is now a WP:HEY. —siro χ o 07:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough referencing support for notability per above. - Indefensible (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2023 (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.