Talk:13/14th Dublin

Untitled
I have only just come across this article and the discussion about merging the 13th and 14th Groups. I have no problem about that. Good idea. However there is no mention of the 14th other than what was in the earlier artcile on the 13th. The first line is confusing = "The 13th/14th Dublin unit is a Scout-group ..". Is it now one Group or is it two Groups? It looks like two. I have had a go at correcting this. Am I right? Perhaps someone could then add to the second para where the 14th meet, and correct other stuff that is not clear. --Bduke 23:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help
Only just noticed the merge of the 2 articles. Although the 14th was established by members of the 13th the 2 groups are totally different and are in different counties. They have as good as no contact an are completely separate. The only thing they have in common as that they are in Rathfranham, but so are 3 other units (Rathfarnham Girl Guides, Rathfarnham Scouts and Whitechurch Scouts). All 5 units are different though and have a different history.

I'll split it in to 2 different articles again. Jorgenpfhartogs 04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The real question is whether, even together, this is a worthy subject for an article. Very many Group articles have been deleted or truncated down to a sentence that is merged into a wider article. To be notable, a Scout Group has to be either the oldest or the largest in some notable place. This is the consensus around the world. I have recently done that to 5 Group articles from Singapore. The 13th might make it. It does not seem to me that the 14th will. Why not start some County Scout articles as happened for the UK and add the Group stuff there. That is largely what has happened in the UK. --Bduke 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)