Talk:Outdoor Service Guides

Notability
We have linked articles on this group from the New York Times, Washington Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Seattle Times, Portland Monthly Magazine, Salon, St. Louis Beacon, the Blaze, and NBC News, published over the course of several years. That seems more than enough to satisfy all five elements of the notability requirement. SixFourThree (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * First, you swiped the BPSA subarticle from Youth org. of the US article and did not give credit to the article's author(s). Second, I well aware what source are there as I am the primary author of said article. I most of the article's source do not significantly cover BPSA. I have been considering the NY Times article that you original turned up, I guess am not sure where the line when good coverage (but not significant) pushes the subject into significant general coverage. I suppose that it should do. Some of the additional you have found are good if they were less about the local group. I guess I will give on the notability issue. Spshu (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Washington Times/The Columbia Missourian/AP article, the article switches on whether or not this is a BP Scout's Association or BP Service Association group, but clearly states that it is affiliated with the BPSA of UK which isn't the case for the current BP Service Association as they are affiliated with the UK BPSA through the WFIS. Kind hard to use the article. Spshu (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm sorry if I intruded on your personal work. Since it seemed to me worthwhile to spin off the small section into its own article, I didn't see any reason why some text from the original section couldn't be used in the full article. So if I offended, I apologize. I'm also unclear as to why you deleted so much that was added to this article, but perhaps that will become clearer.  SixFourThree (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * Go ahead. You can certainly move/copy material from one article to another (you have to if you are spinning off an article) and no editor 'owns' an article.  Though ideally the parent article section should contain only summary of the spinoff material.    --Erp (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NO, SixFourThree, editors have to be credited do to the license that the website is under. So this isn't a matter of my "personal work", it is a matter of you failing to credit where you got your text from. So in effect, you attempt to make my work and what little was contributed by others as your own.
 * As to the remove material, it was primary source material. Primary source should not be overly relied on in writing an article. Ning is a social media website, so is not a generally acceptable source, nor are there suppose to be indiscriminate lists. Spshu (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your characterization is uncharitable to say the least, and the "copied from" oversight was just that. I have no desire to pass your work off as anything but.  If you like, I will rewrite the relevant section to eliminate any doubt. SixFourThree (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * I've added what I believe are the necessary templates to the talk pages to ensure that history and attributions can be traced back. --Erp (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already dealt with the edit summary needed, SixFourThree. Thanks for the assist, Erp. But academically speaking college professors and managers have lost jobs for such "errors", so any explanation may come off as "uncharitable". I did give you credit at Talk:Youth organizations in the United States for finding sources that show the BPSA is notable thus "graduate" to its own article. If you want "uncharitable" see the almost unrelenting attack on that article from attempted deletion under its original name (pass easily since it was total sourced) and further on the talk page. Where they make a snap decision to rename the article with only a few editors responding that didn't even address the issue raise over the name. The renaming has only turned it into an attempted replication of category pages. Spshu (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assist. I can't speak to anything that has happened in the past, but this isn't academia and I do know that here we should all endeavor to presume good faith. SixFourThree (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)SixFourThree