Welcome to the Scouting WikiProject on the English Wikipedia. We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Scouting and Guiding. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them on our discussion page. If you would like to join us, please add your name to the list of project members!
To create the foremost reliable and accurate free-content encyclopedia of Scouting and Guiding in the English language.
To improve coverage of Scouting and Guiding by creating, expanding, and maintaining articles that describe all of its aspects.
To provide guidelines and recommendations for such articles, and to serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to Scouting and Guiding in Wikipedia.
Scouting and Guiding are worldwide youth movements composed of many organizations, all of whom have the common aim of developing young people physically, spiritually and mentally. This aim is achieved through non-formal education with an emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors using the Scout method.
Most regional Scouting and Guiding organizations are members of one of the international umbrella associations. There are also many independent Scouting organizations as well as a number of organizations that do not term themselves as Scouts or Guides, but use the Scouting methods; all of these fall within the scope of this project. There are several Scouting groups within the project scope and many exist within overlapping geopolitical areas.
Organizations who veer from the Scout method by becoming politicized or militarized are outside the project scope.
If you would like to participate, add yourself to the members section of this page.
You can help out by editing a Scouting or Guiding-related article, improving our current collaboration of the week (at right), helping to complete a task on our to-do list, or contributing to the discussion on one of our related talk pages. If you would like some suggestions, just ask on the talk page.
If you find a Scouting or Guiding-related article without our template, please place our template {{WikiProject Scouting}} at the top of the talk page. You can also add this to the talk page of images, categories, and templates.
If you find a Scouting or Guiding-related article without our infobox or portal tag, please place our portal tag, [[Portal:Scouting | The Scouting Portal ]], in the "See also" section of the article. This will advertise our portal and make it easy to navigate to.
If you find a Scouting or Guiding-related stub article that has not yet been marked as a stub, add {{Scout-stub}} to the bottom of the article. It will automatically be included in the Scouting stubs category, where you can find plenty of stub articles to expand if you are itching to do something.
The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.
Article improvement: Bduke - this does not mean that I am going to improve articles all on my own, but I am here to advise editors, after many years of editing WP, if needed, on improving articles. Just ask me on my talk page.
Comment There are a lot of articles for councils: List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Councils are run by volunteers in BSA and they usually are done based on region so I don't know where even the WP:NONPROFIT argument applies (if it even did). The more important thing is WP:N and if it doesn't hold, I would be more towards a redirect to the list provided or any Scouting-related page. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it sounds like the council itself is in the process of shutting down and their territory is being merged into other councils. So, the probability that the council will continue to have any significant long-term web presence is low. While the article does have some problems, the proposal does not indicate why this council would be less notable than others, many of which have independent pages. Wikipedia has plenty of pages dedicated to organizations that no longer exist, including several about defunct BSA councils, so while this organization may not serve people in the future, it would have met WP:N standards during its period of operation. Within certain communities of interest, such as Scout Patch Collectors and Scouting historians, every council is notable enough to get a few pages in things like Scout patch identification guidebooks. Although many of the sources linked are from the council, there are already a few independent sources (but more are needed). I oppose deletion, although I would not object to significant edits to address the issues of neutrality, limited references, etc. ToddDTaft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid:, Yep, merge was my first thought, however being that there's no single suitable target being it is relevant to MN, WI and MI, and the article unambiguously failing NORG, it leaves deletion as a reasonable option. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the alternatives to deletion like Redirect or Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend keep, because this BSA council is no less notable than the hundreds of other councils that also have wikipedia articles. Furthermore, although much of the original material in the article (which Graywalls has already deleted without waiting for the results of this discussion) was poorly sourced, that is more appropriate for a Template:Primary sources to be added (to encourage other editors to contribute to the article) than a deletion request (which only discourages others from contributing). Johnson487682 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions based primarily on the website of the organization, personal websites should be discouraged. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good justification to retain notability failing articles. As a matter of fact, there are so many articles in BSA topic area that are written essentailly from BSA operated sites, personal websites and blogs that they should be merged, redirected or deleted. If it was only in Minnesota, re-direct to Scouting in Minnesota is an easy one, but given it spans over three states, the target is not an easy pick. Graywalls (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content was contrary to policy because any Wikipedia article must not be primarily based on self-published sources. See WP:ABOUTSELF (the five conditions are cumulative). The removal was necessary, and the AfD being in progress does not matter at all. —Alalch E.10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I see no support for Deletion right now. While a Redirect requires a single target article, articles can be Merged to multiple articles so I don't see a problem there. However, just because, other, similar articles exist is not justification to keep this one if notability can not be established. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. After my search for sources per WP:BEFORE I could not find any with something resembling significant coverage, let alone WP:ORGDEPTH-grade significant coverage, and all of the reliable sources I could find were local reports on mundane affairs such as the closing of a camp or local youth receiving scouting awards. WP:NCORP fail, can't provide legitimate encyclopedic coverage of this topic. Interested readers should look elsewhere for information, such as by visiting the organization's website.—Alalch E.10:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect or merge is fine by me. I'm not sure if the content should be merged and if the camps and number of children are such due information in the target article, and those numbers change year after year, but I don't take a position on this.—Alalch E.15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.:, I see no salvageable, reliably, secondary sourceable material that would be WP:DUE to address in other articles, so while I prefer the first suggested list as the target, I'm not entirely opposed to just re-directing to something. Even if deleted, since there's no preserving worthy contents, creating a new re-direct later is no frill. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's postulate: If there is suitably sourced prose content about this topic in a section of an article, that article should be the target of the redirect, and the list entry can link to that content as the locus of most direct coverage on Wikipedia. The question is then: Seeing how such content is currently not present in Scouting in Minnesota, should it be present? This kind of breaks down into two further questions: (1) Is content about individual councils a usual type of content in Scouting in X articles, that is presumably generally seen as due, and (2) are there sources to support any prose about this particular council. The answers to both 1 and 2 are yes: This type of content is absolutely usual (look at any Scouting in [X US state] article), and such sources do exist for this particular council because I've found them and have added them to the article which is the subject of this AfD. This suggests that the target should be Scouting in Minnesota, while the list entry should link to that, and so the only remaining question for me is whether it's only the sources, which do confirm the existence and the "jurisdiction" of the council, as already stated in "Scouting in Minnesota", should be brought over (just copying the references does not require a merge outcome), or if any content should actually be copied (that does suggest a merge outcome). —Alalch E.20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but wouldn't a targeted redirect be the best option here? My thought process here is like articles for any county's school district/board or library department. You have the county page that is a cumulation of the content. When a merge is suggested in the past, it has been assumed to not be a direct merge but anything within the policies. Anything about cleanup on the targeted page is more outside the purview of the AfD. I can imagine there's a bigger can of worms with these articles altogether. – The Grid (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The form of incorporation with their local government entity isn't all that relevant. It only matters when their scope of activity is national or international. Graywalls (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need more participants here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
