Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Gazetteer (for Scotland) (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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Gazetteer (for Scotland)[edit]

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

No reliable sources found for establishing notability. The October 2008 AfD was closed as "speedy keep" for being nominated by a banned user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is notable in itself but the article should be redirected to One Scotland Gazetteer and someone (bagsy no' me) should expand it, ensuring it's properly referenced. Quetzal1964 18:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment agree with Quetzal1964. Dalliance (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be the only sensible decision to end the AFD. The topic was moved during this AFD to One Scotland Gazetteer, which commenters are suggesting should be kept. Was there a "bad" page deserving to be deleted? If there was, it must have secretly been deleted. Currently the AFD is about the page which people want to keep. --do ncr am 22:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable gazetteer. At the time of nomination the article was just a stub without sources but I think the article has been expanded enough and sources added to verify the details of this significant national dataset. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I mean if it is notable, why aren't there any articles about it? There isn't a single article in The Guardian or even technical journals or whatever describing this entity. It's all just government references which is naval-gazing. The one non-government ref is a book, which appears to to contain just one passing reference to the entity. How does this meet WP:GNG? It doesn't meet GNG.

On the other hand, the article is not hurting anyone, and it seems a nice article with the sort of information an encyclopedia might have, I guess. I'm an inclusionist so I'm fine with the article existing and not going to vote either way; WP:GNG was made for us not us for GNG, and to my mind the fact that it's an OK article and not a mess matters quite a bit (although it's not supposed to in these discussions). Just pointing out that it probably doesn't meet our standards, FWIW. Herostratus (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2017 (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.