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 . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children in Scotland (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)

No coverage to meet WP:ORG. Search for old name yields nothing in gnews, and only 1 line mentions in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; 9 results in a google news search with quotes and only one covers the organization, which just documents that Established Titles made a donation to them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Scotland. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Parliamentary records show some use being made of documents produced by this organisation: Lord Mackay in a 1998 House of Lords debate [1]; Mark McDonald in a 2012 Scottish Parliament debate [2]. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily a significant enough organisation to have an article. Plenty of coverage, if nothing major. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "a significantly enough organisation" is not a criterion for notability. It needs to meet WP:ORG. As InvadingInvader states above (any my own search) a search does not come up with sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Necrothesp, if you have found coverage on this organization, do you mind listing some of them? From my search, I have not found any WP:SIGCOV so I am leaning towards deletion since it does not meet WP:GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  11 days after Necrothesp's vote, they still haven't provided any sources. LibStar (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and ORG WP:SIRS. Source eval:

• Fails IS, and SIGCOV, simply states "Children in Scotland is the national agency for voluntary, statutory and professional organisations and individuals working with children and their families in Scotland." >> 1.  "Scottish Childcare - Information Services to help you find childcare in Scotland". Scottish Family Information Service. Archived from the original on 10 October 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012. Children in Scotland is the national agency for voluntary, statutory and professional organisations and individuals working with children and their families in Scotland.
• Interview, fails IS >> 2. ^ Cunningham, Jennifer (2 January 2012). "People think good policies happen almost by magic". HeraldScotland. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
• Routine news >> 3. ^ Page, Front. "Children in Scotland Convenor steps down from role". Children in Scotland. Retrieved 18 January 2021.

BEFORE didn't show anything that meets WP:SIRS, and the above mentioned sources are not SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a question: the Scottish Government cites publications written by "Children in Scotland" in their documents. Since this presumably means that the Scottish Government note their work, doesn't that show some level of notability? What do you think? JMWt (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this can be used to establish notability; per WP:INHERITORG, organizations do not inherit notability by merely being associated with something or someone notable. The fact that they are cited by a national government also does not constitute significant coverage, especially if it's just in reference to specific figures or data points. For clarity, where do they cite these publications? Actualcpscm (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They're cited here 1 - it's in Gaelic but in terms of referencing it is clear that reference 22 is from the organisation in question. I'm sure there is an equivalent document in English but I haven't bothered looking for it if it isn't relevant.

  With reference to your comment, I'm not sure this is a situation of "inherited notability" - whilst they might be said to be associated with the Scottish government, it is also true that the Scottish government have chosen to take notice of their publications. I'll be interested to hear views of others. JMWt (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As others have said, it lacks sigcov in independent sources. Per WP:NGO, the national scope of their activities does not per se establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:26, 27 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.