User talk:Dcs.trad

Youth organizations in the United States & FNE
You do understand the purpose of Youth organizations in the United States is to incubate organizations' as subarticles there until they reach notability instead of putting out some poorly source piece of work like your are doing with Federation of North-American Explorers? I do not understand your (and others) unwillingness to work with me here. --Spshu (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the main article Federation of North-American Explorers predates the inclusion of Federation of North-American Explorers on the Youth organizations in the United States article right? The former dates from September of last year. So there isn't a need for incubation. Dcs.trad (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The date of when an article is started is not an indication of notability. Just some one started the article with out any though of notability. Even an IP editor can start a new article. Spshu (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Article was reviewed and accepted - and I don't see how it doesn't mean notability standards. Dcs.trad (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did not you not see how virtually most of the Scouting Wikiproject gained up on Youth organizations in the United States to the point that one of them nominated it for deletion, which failed. They nominated because it precisely because it met notability and make their article look like, well, basic poor. See others can make mistakes in reviewing and accepting articles from draft space. Your argument is WP:WHATABOUTX which states: "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not." The accept should have reviewed it for notability and did not.
 * It does not meet notability because non of your sources are from the world at large, they are most Catholic newspapers (not at large), diocese websites (not reliable do to no editor oversite), a letter to the editor (opinion) or primary sources. Per notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." What at large sources do you have? None. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That Catholic newspapers are not "at large" is your own interpretation. They are reliable and independent sources in this case. They certainly do not fall into the category of "Questionable sources".
 * Catholic is not "at large" as the public is not 90% (or other large %) Catholic. Catholic and its media is not the general public in the US. Really, a good deal of public "at-large" besides Catholics read these papers? According to WP source not even 22% of the US population are Catholics. No opinion there. Spshu (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that "world at large" refers to a majority? And why are you limiting yourself to US? Surely residents of other countries read the English-language Wikipedia. And you seem to be on a one-editor crusade to redirect other pages about superficially similar organizations (Pathfinders (Seventh-day Adventist), Royal Rangers) to the Youth organizations in the United States page. Why?