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

Mount Diablo Silverado Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources provided are either unreliable or passing mentions. spryde | talk 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America in California#Mount Diablo Silverado Council. There's a lot of content there. The article simply needs a good editor. --evrik ^(talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While WP:AKON is only an essay, it saves me from having to type out my argument. Even if a target can't be decided now, a re-direct can be quickly created at any time by any editor. Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, basically. Just no notability. This is not unlike what we see in articles on university departments--they are rarely notable in their own right, and that their existence relies on being part of a notable organization doesn't make them notable. I doubt that really any councils are notable--looking at the category and clicking randomly on one, San Diego-Imperial Council, that one is not notable. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego-Imperial Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. There is one secondary source, about a small fire in 2004, which does not make the council/camp notable--and one wonders whose bottle rockets they were. Councils/camps from the BSA or any other organization are rarely notable in their own right and this one is no expection. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 13 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]

Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh (talk) 03:11, 14 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]

Philmont Leadership Challenge

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

WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Products, and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify Content is useful but should be updated. --evrik ^(talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for you opinion, but please name three independendent reliable sources with significant depth of coverage specifically on this topic to indicate this warrants a stand-alone article. Factual verifiability is not equivalent to notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Evrik, I don't know what you mean with "wikify". Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I was wondering that too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, but the material does need to be cut back and generally improved. Bduke (talk)
- I think it was "forked" out of that article in the first place. --evrik ^(talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely organizational material, lacking any secondary sourcing--nor should we expect any. I wouldn't call this article an ad, but the effect of this plethora of organizational articles, in-universe articles as it were without any secondary sourcing, is a walled garden for such articles to lean on each other, and that certainly has promotional effects. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing on the page is not independent. A search online didn't find anything in-depth that could satisfy WP:GNG. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable encyclopaedic subject. I believe this one is covered by WP:NORG. There is no sourcing per WP:SIRS demonstrating notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Products, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough content to stand on its own. For anyone who is keeping score, look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Article_watch. Graywalls likes Afding, and hacking at articles, but doesn't help improve them. --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect. This would make a lot more sense as a subsection in the Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. ADifferentMan, the problem here is not "verifiability", it's notability. The sources are all primary. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:North8000, I read over your comment twice but I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this. "Millions have been through it" isn't one, and I don't know what "good sub-article" means or why that means we should keep it. IAR is not an excuse to have all this material in our encyclopedia. I suppose you mean me as part of that duo? Well that's sweet. Can we please get any reliable secondary sourcing? Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what we need. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the ping would need to be on or after June 17th. Soon I'll be gone until then. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please name three sources suggesting WP:SOURCESEXIST to support WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG to sustain this as stand-alone article. I am advocating for re-direct to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your post completely ignores my argument and so is not a response to my post. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument essentially says "I like this stuff and I find it valuable and should be retained" and not grounded in guidelines supported by the wider community and IAR shouldn't liberally invoke to try to retain "I like it and its informative" article that isn't supportable in ordinary guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a completely invented insulting mis-statement of my argument, so far off that it bears no relationship to my argument. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, now Graywalls has posted this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge and is starting to attack Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America). Just saying. BTW, this appears to be an continuation of the discussion held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#User:Graywalls_reported_by_User:72.83.72.31 --evrik ^(talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody came forward for filing that drive-by report and I see Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31 has no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:evrik, can you explain what you mean with "attack" and how that jibes with [{WP:AGF]]? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made my recommendation, gave the basis for it and made my offer. Now I've seen two people misstate what I said. Including misstating that my mention of IAR was explicitly only to follow a common and useful-for-Wikipedia norm which is not explicitly supported by policy. Even if I wasn't going to be gone until June 17th I'd be stepping away from this now,content to go with whatever is decided and leaving my offer open to Wikify if it is kept and if pinged. I'm extending that offer to include doing a careful merge if that is decided and if pinged. In the larger picture the duo has had some valid points that could point toward some refining of BSA articles but unfortunately, I've seen what IMO appears be a hostile view towards the BSA articles, a pretty heavy targeting of them, and where their only activity on them has been towards large scale deletion of material and deletion of articles with no activity towards improving them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The discussion here seems contentious when all that needs to happen is review the references to determine if the topic is notable. Unfortunately, I cannot find any in-depth coverage to show how it meets WP:GNG, nor do I see any references pointed out above that would qualify. If someone is able to provide the sourcing they feel shows notability, I would be happy to review and even change my !vote. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America if page is ultimately deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. This does not meet WP:NORG. In particular this is a non notable product of a notable organisation. WP:NPRODUCT is the relevant guideline. There should be sustained coverage per WP:SIRS. That coverage does not exist. Rather than deleting the page, a redirect to the training page is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIRS coverage, and a redirect that preserves the history would also preserve copyvio like the paragraph beginning ILSC helps crew members with leadership positions..., copied from this Word doc. And that's just from comparing the current text to the sources it cites; I'm guessing there's more copyvio in the history and/or non-cited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]