Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Scotland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Scotland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Scotland. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to United Kingdom.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board; Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Scan for Scotland related AfDs

Scan for Scotland related Prods
Scan for Scotland related TfDs

Scotland

20 Ratho–Chesser

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23 Stirling–St Andrews

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable sources, not limited to the local area. As St Andrews has a major university and no rail connection, other forms of public transport are important there and do tend to get coverage in the Scottish press. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

38 Glasgow–Johnstone

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

101/102 Edinburgh–Dumfries

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article satisfy WP:GNG. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 08:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

478 Dunoon–Portavadie

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but I could very easily be persuaded to keep on the condition the notability is expanded, as I believe this article does have potential. The final two sentences of the first paragraph detail what makes this bus route unique – I'd like to see more of that, as the rest of the article appears to be WP:CRUFTy information on times and the route taken, rather than why it's significant. — Czello ^(music) 10:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste nomination that does not discuss why the sources cited are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the validity of the sources; it's about notability not being established. — Czello ^(music) 14:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator should have explained why they feel the sources are not sufficient for establishing notability. Garuda3 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale given as to why existing sources are not sufficient. Nominator has been on a spree of nominating without rationales and blanked their talk page when this was brought to their attention. Seasider53 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

500 Glasgow Airport Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

747 Aberdeen Airport–Peterhead

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also find the nomination surprising given the references included. I can see an argument along the lines of "most bus routes are not notable so we shouldn't include just a few odd ones" but inherent non-notability has never seemed to gain traction nor has it got into our P&Gs. Thincat (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buchan Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Bus Airport Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M3 Milton–City Centre

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" already in the article, in multiple sources.

Katzrockso (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M4 Anniesland–Partick

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" already in the article, in just about every single source. Katzrockso (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X1 Glasgow–Hamilton

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG, as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" already in the article, in just about every single source. Katzrockso (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's of Wick

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bus of North Lanarkshire

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste nomination that does not discuss why the cited sources are not valid --Garuda3 (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Fraser of Balconie

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing any significant achievements that satisfy WP:BIO. One of the two paragraphs isn't even really about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Scotland. jolielover♥talk 12:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is something about this article that attracts deletion requests, don't let me get in the way. I responded to a previous request to have this article killed (that seems to have died itself because of lack of input) and would repeat the points made there, but otherwise I'm not going to request a keep or anything, if people want to merge it into the Evanton article go for it. 'Not seeing any significant achievements that satisfy WP:BIO. ' Not sure what that means, but he is remembered as the founder of an important town in the Scottish Highlands and would have notability as a landowner, wouldn't want to try to quantify that though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Being a landowner doesn't establish notability, and the Evanton article calls it a village. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say "being a landowner" "[establishes] notability", again whatever that's supposed to mean. Also "town" or "village", there is no technical difference in Scotland, for instance baile can be translated as either (see Town#Scotland). Though I understand one might sound smaller to a North American & thus I suppose you might think it helps the case for the deletion of its founder I didn't intend by calling it a 'town' to prejudice your case. Again, though I don't understand the basis of your deletion case, I have no objection to a merger if that's what people think is best. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't write "would have notability as a landowner"? Also, whatever the label, Evanton had a population of 1390 in 2020. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Landowners in Scotland, particularly the Highlands, were major public figures due to the country's extremely 'feudal' landowning system. That would give him notability, but I didn't mean (apologies) that this establishes what is currently Wikipedia:Notability, frankly I've no idea that's up to you guys who apply and interpret that routinely. If I remember I only created the article because I just assumed it would be a good complement for the Evanton article, I assumed there would be lots of other stuff & I think there is some other stuff out there in non-internet available books (particular local journals), but I'm not going to be adding it & I don't think anyone else will, he's not of much interest to me. I recently read a piece about him and his Caribbean slavery plantations re Evanton (related to this), it would be good to have some of that in one of the articles, either Evan Fraser (if he survives) or Evanton, it's maybe just about possible that I might add it sometime in the future but probably not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Jordan (author)

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

The Critical Drinker does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline due to his lack of coverage in reliable or independent secondary sources. Searching on Google returns his YouTube channel, a handful of Reddit threads, and apparently he was on FOX News Radio. He is described as having "enormous popularity" by Plugged In, but I don't think that justifies a standalone article. He seems to just be another angry internet voice with a platform, and it would be UNDUE for Wikipedia to maintain a poorly sourced article about him at the present time. TNstingray (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No book reviews I can find for AUTHOR, I don't see much otherwise about the social media personality. The German news article could be, but it's paywalled, and one article still isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The only reliable source I've found is [1], and it's an interview, so it isn't primary. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jordan has been cited in the media enough to pass WP:AUTHOR #1.[2][3][4][5] Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tioaeu8943: The first URL you provide from The Guardian includes a very brief quote from him (half a sentence) – definitely not significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). There are multiple community discussions that have found GB News (the 3rd URL) to be generally unreliable per WP:GBNEWS. Bridget (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NAUTHOR says "widely cited by peers," not at what length or anything about their reliability. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four sources is hardly widely cited, and three of them aren't reliable sources anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FETCH Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a couple links from media outlets doesn't prove that he is "widely cited by peers" per WP:NAUTHOR. For one, media outlets aren't his "peers". Since we are talking about WP:NAUTHOR, I would expect this to mean other novelists, specifically his contemporaries in crime fiction. Your claim that these links (and others in the article) can let us conclude that he is widely cited is original research and is not supported by a reliable source. Best, Bridget (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, while it doesn't seem big enough to have warranted an entry on WP:RSP, Cosmic Book News seems pretty unreliable. Further, none of the provided citations move the Critical Drinker into significantly passingWP:AUTHOR. TNstingray (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a couple of reviews of his books on editorialized novel review websites [6][7][8][9]. One book review on the Irish Independent [10]. He was nominated to the McIlvanney Prize [11], which seems prestigious in the area, and there was this Die Welt article about him [12].V. S. Video (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ardifuir

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

No WP:SIGCOV or WP:RELIABLE sources whatsoever. Article consists of only a single sentence and infobox that only explains its location. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I couldn't find any census records to indicate that this place is currently populated, and there is definitely no SIGCOV here. However, if anyone can prove this place is populated, it might meet WP:GEOLAND. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few sources mentioning it according to some of them it is clearly some sort of hotel/tourist destination [13][14]. I've found another source that calls it a village [15] but the description to me is dubious, possibly AI nonsense, and the photos on that page are from Crinan, Argyll, which agrees with what google maps calls Crinan. ~~With that said, I would therefore Redirect to Crinan, Argyll~~
It is an OS settlement[16] but it does appear it might just be 1 house. There is a dun which is a scheduled monument and there is an article at de:Dun Ardifuir I. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this information I tried to look for some academic sources and got a few hits, I was able to use some of them to improve the article, but there were also several books on google books that were unfortunately behind a paywall. Based on the sources I found I am changing my vote to Keep as I now think that while this location fails WP:GEOLAND is just about passes WP:GNG as an archaeological site. Giuliotf (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by your addition to the article, it was originally a single sentence with no citation at all, with an infobox that only explained its geography. That said, I'm hesitant to withdraw this AfD as of now as I haven't heard what others think about this. I'll be glad to close it once there's a clearer consensus. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Giuliotf (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like notability is now established with the prehistory rather than as a geographical place. The recent additions enough for a keep in my view as per WP:HEY. It is a place in Trove.[17] Coldupnorth (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the improvements made above - it's certainly a populated place and even has some references showing archeological interest. Adam Sampson (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Reserve Bank

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

The article presents itself as the proposed Reserve Bank of Scotland and uses references to that effect which, on inspection, bear no relation to the organisation. According to the about page of the website, it is actually just a campaigning website run by one man (https://www.reservebank.scot/about).

The article failed a speedy deletion proposal on breaches of both G11 (blatant promotion) and G3 (a hoax and blatant disinformation) as the reviewer felt it wasn't immediately obvious and warranted discussion. However, I would ask editors to read the linked website and also search the references provided for 'reserve bank'. To my surprise, there was no mention whatever of the Scottish Reserve Bank or similar terms in many of the cited references. The page appears to be merely a vehicle to advance a cause and promote a website. Dgp4004 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Scotland. Dgp4004 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you be careful about making assertions over the intention of this article. I spent a considerable amount of time in the creation of this article for the purposes of the significance of the banking system, and that of a central bank, in an independent Scotland (in which another contributor has pointed out is "obviously plausible". In this situation, I would ask that you consider other "vehicles to advance a cause" such as Arab Union, North American Union and the Pacific Union to name a few. These are all proposed organisations, like the Scottish Central Bank, and going with your argument, if the SCB is a "vehicle to advance a cause" then surely these proposed organisations would be as well? Goodreg3 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt how much time was spent on it. And I absolutely accept that you have not misled. [edited] The references on the article page are about an independent Scotland's currency rather than 'the' Scottish Reserve Bank, whatever that is. Some of the information you have written on currency proposals that isn't fan fiction need not be wasted and would be better placed on the Scottish independence#Issues article. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the about section what it is as you say, it's not really right to accuse the website's creator or the company behind it of 'deception'. I don't really understand the intention of the analogy with 'fan fiction either, it seems to be a serious attempt to provide the media with expert analysis designed to influence in favour of a cause, much like a think tank or something, and also has a corporate identity and one expert with public standing. The organisation's current notability should be evaluated seriously, but of course also separately from the notability of the idea of a Scottish reserve bank. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Does it mention Tim Rideout	Does it mention reservebank.scot/
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2024/09/foi-202400426078/documents/foi---202400426078---information-released---annex-a/foi---202400426078---information-released---annex-a/govscot%3Adocument/FOI%2B-%2B202400426078%2B-%2BInformation%2Breleased%2B-%2BAnnex%2BA.pdf	no	no
https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence/pages/8/	no	no
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2022/10/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence/documents/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence/govscot%3Adocument/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence.pdf	no	no
https://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-10/Twenty-First%20Century%20Central%20Banking%20and%20an%20Independent%20Scotland%E2%80%99s%20Currency%20Choice.pdf	dead link	dead link
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/borrowing-independent-scotland.pdf	no	no
https://www.hsfkramer.com/en_US/insights/2021-04/scottish-independence-implications-for-financial-services	no	no
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15206.htm	no	no
https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1.-Currency-choices-for-an-Independent-Scotland.pdf	no	no
https://www.gov.scot/publications/independence-what-you-need-to-know/pages/economy/	no	no
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-would-the-currency-options-be-for-an-independent-scotland	no	no
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63278974	no	no
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-currency-union-with-an-independent-scotland-is-not-going-to-happen-says-chancellor	no	no
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/why-a-currency-union-would-be-bad-for-scotland-and-the-uk	no	no
https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/enlargement-euro-area/who-can-join-and-when_en	no	no
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2023/11/building-new-scotland-independent-scotland-eu/documents/independent-scotland-eu-paper-7/independent-scotland-eu-paper-7/govscot%3Adocument/independent-scotland-eu-paper-7.pdf	no	no
https://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/news/article/snp-financial-strategy-is-late-incompetent-and-unsustainable	no	no
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/10/08/bank-of-england-independent-scotland-crisis-snp/	no	no

The Telegraph, BBC, and Economics Observatory sources don't mention Rideout or the organization, but they really should if the organization is notable. I didn't check to see if Tim Rideout meets WP:NACADEMIC because this article doesn't mention him by name and could not be converted into an article about Rideout. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article feels more like fan fiction or WP:CRYSTAL than a hoax. Scottish independence is obviously plausible enough that a variety of serious organizations have undertaken the thought exercise of what that independence would like and concluded that some form of central bank would be needed. Nothing in this article makes the case for a presumed Scottish Central Bank standing out among the reserved matters. Are we going to have articles about the hypothetical Scottish Army and Scottish passport as well? Brandon (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but given the significance of the banking system in any country, least not an independent Scotland, the article is at least an attempt to create one source of information for what that would look like. Other proposed organisations, some of which never came to fruition and merely proposed, have their own articles on Wikipedia. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what Wikipedia is for. See WP:CRYSTAL

Those other organisations have Wikipedia articles because they are reported on by reliable secondary sources; i.e., they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; a tertiary collection of secondary sources. It is not a place to create a 'source of information' for what a hypothetical independent Scotland's reserve bank 'could' look like. Athanelar (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Serious notability and original research concerns here. Regardless of the arguments made for/against independence, this is an article about a proposed reserve bank, which in itself is far from planned seriously at the moment. Almost all of the references relate to the wider economic issues of what may (not actually) happen if independence came. Notability is therefore not established. It is clear the editor has put time and effort in to create this article but that is not enough to keep it. There may come a time, several years from now where this article meets notability requirements if Scotland is going independent but its not now unfortunately. As an another editor has observed, where does it end, an article about a proposed Scottish Foreign Ministry or an article about a proposed Scottish Coast Guard?! Coldupnorth (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage I'd say Keep as an article about the proposed institution, the think tank does not appear to meet notability criteria. The article could theoretically contain information I suppose from the think tank but shouldn't be conflated, in theory an editorial rather than existential problem. I can imagine that a page about the institution might attract hostility from opponents of Scottish independence, but none of the arguments so far advanced convince. It's established that the concept of the Scottish reserve bank is widely discussed and notable, the editor offered reasonable parallels, cases must be judged individually not selectively with slippery slope logic. I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies, and the parallels with 'fan fiction' are totally inappropriate. There is perhaps a possibility for merger in a wider article about proposed institutions of an independent Scotland. I am open minded on the topic, but this is where I stand at the moment having read the argument for deletion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I would agree with it attracting hostility from opponents of Scottish independence. Having read the article, I think it is neutral in it actually shows the serious hurdles and difficulties needed for the bank to become a reality. That in itself would lend itself to opponents arguments just as much as the supporters. There is a criticism section in the article after all. I think the issue for me is that its a proposed bank that is far from a reality and I do not see that as notable. The term itself is questionable, much of the references talking about currency etc, rather than the Scottish Reserve Bank itself. If anything, relevant content would be better at Scottish_independence#Issues under currency/banking. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we will be able to dump the content of the article at Scottish_independence#Issues, under currency/banking, the balance of that overall article is already quite finely tuned. I share some anxieties about this reserve bank topic in its current form and name I'll be honest, but it's also clear that Wikipedia's coverage of published thinking about various proposals for the potential independence process and its aftermath could usefully and reasonably be expanded beyond the relatively (and necessarily) curt treatment they receive in the Scottish independence main article. Perhaps something like Scottish independence process (or something similar from the wikiworld of something like the Israeli–Palestinian peace process) that could cover related topics. I note on a brief scan that the encyclopedia already has Tartan Curtain, a similar post-independence topic but also one of less weight. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I would continue to argue as to why other proposed organisations mentioned above somehow meet criteria but a proposed Scottish central bank does not. References from the Scottish Government do mention ideas of a Scottish central bank, as do others about the management of a new Scottish currency, by a new Scottish central bank. Again, I don't see the argument being strong enough that the sources provided do not mention a Scottish central bank. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So a potential solution comes to mind. What about changing the article name and rewording it slightly to something like Economic issues affecting Scottish independence. There are instances of similar named articles although on unrelated political subjects such as Issues affecting the single transferable vote. I certainly think information in an article on the wider issues relating to independence on banking, currency, debt etc would all be useful for readers and likely meet WP:N. There certainly is significant coverage on all these matters relating to currency, the economy etc. That way it avoids the issue of trying to decide if a future/proposed Scottish Reserve Bank is notable in itself. It allows Goodreg3 to keep much of the content here that has clearly taken time to add and it certainly would be less likely to see original research to support a bank article and more about providing verified sources from Scottish Government etc to readers. It also gives opportunity to expand the article and cover a subject more in depth than the Scottish Independence article. I would be willing to support that. What are others thoughts? Coldupnorth (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me and resolves my original objections. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your proposal, I think it is a good compromise. However, I am not sure the proposed title of Economic Issues would be reasonable? Who is to say the creation of a new currency and central bank would be an issue or problem? Would Economy of an independent Scotland, Economic strategy of Scottish independence or Banking in an independent Scotland be more suitable? Goodreg3 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well, I would say Issue as a noun typically means an important subject, not necessarily a problem (that depends how it is interpreted). However, looking at the article sources, several use the word Implications in the title. So if issues does not work, how about something like Economic implications of Scottish independence and see how the article does edited like that? There may still be users who argue against notability of such an article but it is not the same as a proposed bank so may be easier to support. @Goodreg3 Unless anyone disagrees at this stage, I would suggest you ask a non interested party to close the debate, rename and edit the article accordingly and we can all see how it stands up. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reality of the establishment of a central bank for an independent Scotland is realistic. Whether Scottish independence is a certainty is another issue. The topic of Scottish independence is again current and continues to be an objective of the Scottish Government, with a number of recent opinion polls putting support for independence above that of Scotland remaining a country of the United Kingdom. If that is anything to go by, Scottish independence is something that it is a real possibility. I am not saying we should be judging this on opinion polls, however, given the significance of both the creation of a new Scottish currency and the establishment of the a central bank to oversee this, I would argue that the article at least warrants its own standing. Not to mention the research and time spent creating this article, with a blend of references to support and oppose the views included on the article. Of course, I would welcome the contributions of other editors to improve the article, and am open to other suggestions about where the article ends up should a majority vote for its deletion. That said, I do feel it is unfair to claim that the article is founded on original research solely. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CRYSTALBALL? SYNTH? OR? Take your pick. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL/WP:No original research. We don't need articles on organizations that don't even exist yet.4meter4 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SYNTH. No articles discusses this "outfit", only various points about what would happen with after independence with the money system in the new country. "Finances of Independent Scotland" could perhaps have an article, but this isn't that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland

Scotland

20 Ratho–Chesser

23 Stirling–St Andrews

38 Glasgow–Johnstone

101/102 Edinburgh–Dumfries

478 Dunoon–Portavadie

500 Glasgow Airport Express

747 Aberdeen Airport–Peterhead

Buchan Express

Bright Bus Airport Express

M3 Milton–City Centre

M4 Anniesland–Partick

X1 Glasgow–Hamilton

Aaron's of Wick

Blue Bus of North Lanarkshire

Evan Fraser of Balconie

Will Jordan (author)

Ardifuir

Scottish Reserve Bank

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also