Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scouting

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Scouting. 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|Scouting|~~~~}} 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 Scouting. 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.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scouting/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Any user can redirect this title to a suitable target if one is found. ✗plicit 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton Council

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

Scouting council is an organization, thus is expected to meet WP:NCORP which the organization in question fails miserably. Hyper-local branch of a larger organization. WP:BRANCH. I suggest delete, and re-direct to target if suitable one can be found. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, United States of America, Kentucky, and Ohio. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete or redirect. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands Boy Scout Association

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

This has no sigcov/notability and no coverage in secondary and reliable sources. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move the material to Scouts Aotearoa at least until there is much more material than there is now and do the same for Scouting in Niue and Scouting in Tokelau. Bduke (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Scouting. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite this article being created 18 years ago, it has no sources (violating WP:OR), and is only comprised of one singular sentence (making it a WP:STUB). Mjks28 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the material to Scouts Aotearoa as suggested above. Bduke (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the (very little) information seems unreliable. The connection to Scouts Aotearoa is unsourced; the World Organization of the Scout Movement describes the org as an "potential member" within the Council of South Pacific Scout Associations [1]. --jergen (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Council Service Territories as a sensible ATD. National Service Territories is already a redirect to the same target. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the Boy Scouts of America

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

Because, it's guidebook like. Per deletion policies 13 & 14: "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace". That policy would be WP:NOTAGUIDE

"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"

This article is basically internal documentation and not unlike an article like Safeway region, or Best Buy Districts sourcing to their own documents of internal interest only. At best it's a re-direct, but I'm wondering the necessity of having so many of them that maybe on the verge of becoming keyword stuffing. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Could this be merged into Boy Scouts of America? Eopsid (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% primary sourced, so not suitable. Graywalls (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, the redirects for the old regions (i.e. Central Region (Boy Scouts of America)) should be retargeted back to List_of_councils_(Boy_Scouts_of_America). Walsh90210 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article doesn't demonstrate standalone notability, but I don't see the issue with using a primary source to briefly cover the regions in the Boy Scouts of America article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there. Boy_Scouts_of_America#National_Service_Territories So perhaps, del-n-redir might do? Graywalls (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Graywalls. Axad12 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to National Service Territories, which has superseded the regions ("Regions were replaced by National Service Territories in June 2021"). The old regions can be displayed in the new territories article. Per WP:PRESERVE policy. -- GreenC 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Service Territories. It makes sense to merge this article with that of its successor; the two should not be standalone from one another. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:52, 22 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Training Center

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:Before via newspaper and library search shows no independent sources covering the center itself in depth. All current sources are from the organization that runs it or a conference listing. spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the reasons outlined by spryde.
Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2024 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homenetmen

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

This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Sports, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Archives908, it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris, as the log reflects, on 31 May 2020, and undeleted "per request at WP:RFUD" (I'm copying from the deletion log) on the same day. If your simple google search delivers so many results, please show us a couple that meet RS. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV --jergen (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2024 (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.

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. The rough consensus turns into a clear consensus once the blocked socks and the non-P&G-based (canvassed?) !votes are discarded. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing supporting GNG in the newspaper archives I've looked through. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and the fact that this is the primary source for this subject demonstrates that the subject lacks notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (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.