Talk:Scouting in Fife

Article Improvement
This article isn't really more than a list. To avoid deletion, it should be fleshed out. Robovski 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contact Information
Personal or professional contact information should not be added to the article - it's not suitable for an encyclopedia.Robovski 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of The Bridges Network to here
Individual units, such as Groups, troops, packs etc are not normally considered notable. The Scout Network unit article does not assert notability and is unlikely to be notable as it is new. Merge to the area article is the only solution other than having this successfully proposed for deletion. Please add you view below. --Bduke 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Although The Bridges Network is an individual group i think it covers a large enough area to have its own page. ( It covers the whole of Fife) i could understand if there were loads of its kind in Fife that all wanted their own page but there isn't anyone else like us. Once we have our logo on the page it will look a lot better than the Scouting in Fife site which is only really a section of links to external sites. It doesn't tell any on lookers what it is about. Mergers happen in the real world between to things of likeness, for example two banks may merge together or one football club may merge with another. But to merge Scouting in Fife with The Bridges Network is like merging a rugby team with a football team. It wouldn't make sense. --Minimike89 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right that Scouting in Fife needs work, so why do you not work on it to improve it? The Bridges Network is part of Scouting in Fife, so it does make sense to merge it. Articles on smaller entities are merged to articles on the parent entity. It happens all the time. However, the real point is that The Bridges Network has no sources for any of the information, let alone independent sources. It does not even start to meet the policies of WP:V and WP:RS. It could therefore be speedy deleted. If you think the article should continue to exist, you need to address these concerns and the concern that it does not meet the notability guidelines. You need to address them fast. Above you say it covers the whole Scout Area and is the only one in Fife. That is an assertion of notability but it is not in the article and it should be. Nevertheless, I do not think it makes it notable. It is too small and too recent. --Bduke 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think revamping their Area's wikipedia page is just the sort of support Scout Network members could provide local scouting. Scout Network seems to have no mention in the main article, and the text on the area's only unit should be included. Biscit 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * As above. --Bduke 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * per above. Rlevse 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * per nom; this needs to work from the top down- work it up in this article until it can be properly split. Else someone will put it up for deletion.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As above --Biscit 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * per nom, good catch. Chris 01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, I think you meant to support not oppose. --Bduke 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed. Note it still needs a source as does most of this article. --Bduke 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Districts
The info in the article looks out of date. The Area web site lists five districts only. Four are in the article but "North East Fife" is not. "Benarty, Cupar, East Neuk and St Andrews are not mentioned on the Area site. Scoutbase is more like the article but still not exactly the same. It is however dated 2005, while the area website is less than a month old. Really these lists of Groups under Districts should not be in the article, but they are there for most UK Area/County articles. They are unmaintainable. Can someone try to fix this and source it? --Bduke (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)