Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Waterways Trust

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 The result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Waterways Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article has two references -- one is dead and the other is a primary source. Outside of the article, I can only find meaningful coverage in one secondary source ([1]), which is largely just quoting from statements. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Scotland. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a regional charity that existed for less than a decade, this isn't the highest profile subject, but there is coverage in Scottish newspapers about its programs and funding, including this about it's failure, this and this about the Canal College program, this about protecting Socttish canals, and others such as this, this, and this. --RL0919 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on balance. I've added some content and references to the article, though too many of the sources look as if they are based on press releases or other primary sources. My main reason for !voting Keep is that I'm pretty sure there is offline coverage of this in reliable sources. Funding and responsibility for the canal network has been written about, and there is a story here about lack of investment and this organisation going under which I'm sure would have received coverage at the time - the Falkirk Herald article, for instance, suggests that there was earlier coverage of the organisation's financial problems. I did wonder about suggesting a merge to its successor organisation, Keep Scotland Beautiful, but the history of the various bodies responsible for the waterways is probably too complicated to make that sensible. Tacyarg (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Tacyarg's improvements to the text and references, also agreeing with that user's reservations about the possible merge target (The Waterways Trust could be another), etc. As others have said, there is available coverage of initiatives by the SWT (seeking to establish specialist college places [2]; outreach programme at Falkirk Wheel [3]) before it was overtaken by financial problems. Local coverage, but I think on balance there is enough overall to retain this part of the history of charitable provision. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This organisation was only active for a brief period of several years, but there is coverage in a range of sources, in particular in relation to the canal college initiative that they developed. I've added further links and material to the article. They also occupy an interesting place in the reorganisation that took place around the management of canals etc in Scotland and the UK. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As it stands the article seems to show significant coverage and make clear that the organisation made enough of an impact to meet any concerns about notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems we are needing more keep votes to get a clearer consensus so hurry along, please. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Desertarun (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. I don't understand why this wasn't already closed with a consensus to keep given support for that outcome is unanimous and mostly policy based. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. The nomination appears to be based on a focus on references versus sources per WP:NEXIST plus in an inability to find sources. This culminated in the usual waste of community resources, worsened by a double relist. gidonb (talk) 01:15, 22 April 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.