Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Collective

this article lacks notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by RACHCIS2011 (talk • contribs)

• National Collective does NOT lack notability. It is one of the leading non-political party blogs which support Scottish Independence and such blogs are absolutely essential given the almost 100% support of the main Scottish Media for NO to Independence. This current proposal smells to high heaven and is probably because the Blog wrote a highly critical article about one of the millionaire donors to the No campaign who has little connection to Scotland. He was also the CEO when the Company was convicted in a US Court in 2006 for gross violations of the 'oil to Iran' oil embargo. The Company was fined millions of dollars and had to pay similar amounts in restitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.128.207 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go for deletion. The threat of legal action may increase notability by generating references and press coverage in publications acceptable as sources to wikipedia- eg 'the Streisand Effect'. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• National Collective do not "lack notability". They are playing a vital part in providing citizen journalism and a space for artists, writers, musicians and creatives to engage in the campaign and referendum for Scottish independence. They are doing this against the back-drop of a highly biased UK media, and there is today a clear attempt to silence them after they produced an article detailing the nature of one of the major funders of the UKs campaign to keep Scotland from becoming independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given the recent and ongoing developments in media regarding story run by National Collective on funders to the Better Together campaign, I think it does not lack notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• National Collective seems significant to me. As a political organisation with hundreds of volunteers and a role in a major upcoming referendum, I would say that its page is of encylopaedic value - especially since it has played a role in a major breaking news story (the involvement of Ian Taylor with Better Together). Zcbeaton (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• National Collective is a very important part of the referendum debate in Scotland. Their ongoing fundraiser is generating thousands of pounds and their influence is widespread amongst the art community of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.81.116 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given that they've had one major video targeted for suppression by a political campaign, and that they broke (well, collated and published) a major story that has since been picked up by the Guardian, Scotsman, and Herald, I think they are well on their way to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.253.183 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• The timing of this article being marked for deletion on the same day the site has been served with a cease & desist type letter would make any reasonable person profoundly suspicious of the motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.166.221 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand how National Collective can be considered for deletion. Alan Bisset is one of their key contributors. Alan Bisset is a keynote speaker at the launch of Yes Scotland campaign meetings such as Yes East Kilbride launch on 1st March 2013. National Collective is one of the key information sources out with the mainstream media on the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamBDavidson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to what other folk are saying, I don't think National Collective is going to become significant - I think it already is significant. More than enough references to National Collective in the media to satisfy the notability guidelines, and it has a part to play in the upcoming referendum. Let's not rush to delete it. Zcbeaton (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If the Organisation itself is notable perhaps the article itself could be expanded a little to reflect this? Of the two paragraphs that currently make up the article the first talks of the groups establishment but doesnt really explain what the group does and the Alan Bissett reference as to what the group seeks to do is from more than a year ago.

The Second describes an attempt to shut the group down. Anyone care to put anything in between? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.83.56 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

who wants it deleted, the anti-independence brigade who are trying to hide their misdemeanours at least and downright criminality at worst. In the realisation that we need fair and democratic process, then silencing the opposition, who are bringing out the truth is wrong. In this respect alone National Collective are correct and should be allowed to remain.