Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Am Buidheann Dubh

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. ✗plicit 23:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am Buidheann Dubh

[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)

Completely non-notable advocacy group. Has been tagged as not notable since 2012. Cannot find any reliable third party coverage of this group other than the very occasional mention that just indicates they exist. No real third party coverage. Not sure what more to say, but they completely fail notability guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group's twitter account is still active, and I added some references. I think the media coverage is enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with proposer. Clear non notability and despite efforts at new references by Eastmain, notability is still not established. Strong argument for it also being self-promotion/publicity. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. The reliability and quality of the sources is questionable, pressreader.com is a copy of an article from the Scottish Daily Mail, and the wiki article on The Digger notes this to be a local publication. EdwardUK (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the comments above that the group does not appear to have the notability or level of coverage that would be expected for it to have its own article on Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2021 (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.