Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Cathays Al Huda


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge into Scouting in Wales. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1st Cathays Al Huda

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable recently founded local Scout unit. jergen (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Easily passes WP:GNG per the multitude of reliable sources in the article. See this article from the BBC, this article from the South Wales Echo, this article from Children & Young People Now, this article from the National Secular Society, and this article from the Times Educational Supplement. Would the nominator care to explain why they nominated this article for deletion when these sources were already present in this article? Cunard (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to merge to Scouting in Wales per below. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG. I don't believe it should be necessarily deleted, but the information can certainly be merged into one of the articles on UK_Scouting. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging this article is not a good option. See my comment below. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

''Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.''
 * Delete Local branches of national organizations are not usually notable, and even if this one is, see WP:ORG:
 * Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This cub scout group is clearly notable. Did you even look at the sources I listed above? Those five sources prove this group's notability per WP:ORG. Merging this article is not an option because that would result in undue weight in the parent article. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which parent article do you think it should go in? The undue weight has to do with POV, which is not an issue here, that is absolutely irrelevant. Drawn Some (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should go in any parent article. Why should this article about a notable Scout unit be merged? It passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've wrongly interpreted the guideline. See my comment below to Bduke. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not got time now to study this, but the appropriate merge target would be Scouting in Wales, which covers all Scouting in Wales, but not Guiding, if a merge is agreed. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had some time to study this and think about it. We have had lots of articles on Scout Groups (BTW, it is a Scout Group, not a Cub Scout Group, and it has Beaver Scout, Cub Scout and Scout sections) and almost all of them have been merged. A Group has to have a long history to be notable enough for a separate article. This article already contains material that is promotional advertising, which should be removed. It is a newish Group. What else can be said about it? I support merge to Scouting in Wales, where it has been mentioned for quite a long time. The first Scout Group, back in 1908, if it could be identified, might be notable enough for an article and would probably have a long history to add details. However I do not think the first Muslim Group in Wales, any more than the first Catholic, or Church of Wales Group is sufficiently notable. Yes, it has had some press notice, but is this enough for a proper article? The quote from WP:ORG, given above, really does fit this situation. It should be merged for now, until this material gets too large. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  A Group has to have a long history to be notable enough for a separate article. Wrong. See Category:Companies established in 2009 and Category:Organizations established in 2009. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument does not apply here. Articles do exist for recently-founded companies and organizations that pass WP:ORG.
 * This article already contains material that is promotional advertising, which should be removed. Please do not make such patently false accusations about my article writing. I saw this scout group at CAT:CSD and decided to rescue it. I have no connections with this scout group and certainly do not wish to "advertise" this group on Wikipedia. If you have any issues with the tone of the article, please quote the sentences or phrases that are promotional. I can find nothing.
 * It is a newish Group. What else can be said about it? I wrote 9 sentences about this scout group. This article is decently-sized. Merging it into another article would unnecessarily increase the size of that article. This article is long enough to stand on its own.
 * The first Scout Group, back in 1908, if it could be identified, might be notable enough for an article and would probably have a long history to add details. However I do not think the first Muslim Group in Wales, any more than the first Catholic, or Church of Wales Group is sufficiently notable. Again, your WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument does not apply here. The first Catholic Wales Group may or may not deserve an article, but that all depends on whether news organizations have covered it. That's different from this scout group, which has received much coverage.
 * The quote from WP:ORG, given above, really does fit this situation. It should be merged for now, until this material gets too large. Wrong. You and and Drawn Some have wrong interpretations of the guideline. The guideline proposes that local chapter articles are split from their parent articles when they have grown too long. However, it does not deny the creation of a local chapter article (like this one) that passes WP:ORG. The quote above proves that a separate article is warranted. The general notability guideline is met. Please don't base the reason for merging this article on what has happened to articles about non-notable scout groups that have been merged/deleted. I repeat, this scout group is notable and passes the guidelines, so it should not be merged. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Group meets four times every week at the Roath Park Community Centre in Roath" is just advertising, whether you intended it that way or not. It is certainly not encyclopedic. Other parts get close to that. More importantly, what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST, I think is merely reflecting the consensus that has built up over about three years in the Scouting WikiProject over the question of separate articles on Scout Groups and other units. This is a real consensus that many editors have contributed to. I really do think the best outcome is to expand the sentence in Scouting in Wales, which I added when I merged all the articles on separate Scout Areas in Wales, into that article. I did not come to that conclusion lightly. This Group may well be the best Group article that has been written over the years. All the others have been merged, except for one or two that have notability outside of Scouting. This is not an easy decision. However I still do not think it is best left as a stand-alone article. Even the Queer Toronto Scouting Group is now a redirect. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Group meets four times every week at the Roath Park Community Centre in Roath" is just advertising, whether you intended it that way or not. Please explain why. After taking another look at that sentence, I still cannot see what is promotional or unencyclopedic about it. That sentence is not promoting the company; it gives facts about how many times and where the scouts meet. If I wanted to advertise the camp, I would write: "The scout group meets many times every week at the large, spacious, fun, air-conditioned Roath Park Community Centre in the beautiful city of Roath."
 * Other parts get close to that. I would like more specific examples. When I write articles, I include only relevant, encyclopedic content that informs the reader. I don't believe that I did anything different here.
 * More importantly, what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST, I think is merely reflecting the consensus that has built up over about three years in the Scouting WikiProject over the question of separate articles on Scout Groups and other units. This is a real consensus that many editors have contributed to. Where is this consensus? Is it implicit in all AfD debates? I doubt this. Your fellow Scouting members have agreed with merges for all the scout articles they see because nearly all scouting organizations are non-notable and lack reliable sources to prove their notability per WP:ORG.
 * I really do think the best outcome is to expand the sentence in Scouting in Wales, which I added when I merged all the articles on separate Scout Areas in Wales, into that article. Why? An article about this notable scouting group is much better than one small paragraph crammed into a large article about numerous organizations.
 * I did not come to that conclusion lightly. Neither have I.
 * This Group may well be the best Group article that has been written over the years. If this is so, this article should not merged. It is well-sourced and neutrally written.
 * All the others have been merged, except for one or two that have notability outside of Scouting. The others have been merged because they lack reliable sources to prove their notability per WP:ORG.
 * This is not an easy decision. However I still do not think it is best left as a stand-alone article. What is wrong with it being a stand-alone article? All you have cited in this deletion debate is that previous consensus has determined that all scout articles, even those that pass WP:ORG, should be merged. I disagree with such a consensus. You should explain why this particular article should be merged.
 * Even the Queer Toronto Scouting Group is now a redirect. This is another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I disagree that that notable scouting article was merged, but that is for another debate.
 * Since you like using WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, I'll use one here too:
 * I took at look at the most recent AfD debate about scout articles: Articles for deletion/Scouting gijsbrecht van aemstel and saw that the members of this WikiProject automatically vote merge instead of evaluating each scout group's individual notability. The comments range from merge even if notable, the oldest Finnish and Indian troops went back into their national articles to Scouting and Guiding in the Netherlands redirects to Scouting Nederland as the only national Scouting organization. As best I see, this is a local group of Scouting Nederland. The valid replies that that scout article passed the notability guideline were ignored. The fact that multiple news organizations wrote articles about that scouting group was vastly ignored. A good article could have been written about that topic, but no, all the voters ignored this, even when  volunteered to rewrite it. There are serious problems with the "implicit consensus" that has been established in this WikiProject. My respect for the Scouting WikiProject's judge of articles has considerably dwindled, so I do not accept the consensus that you have mentioned above.
 * One of the replies was: Could you explain the rationale behind merge even even if notable ? Isn't notability the main criterion?. I pose this same question to you. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Scouting in Wales where it should be a paragraph with refs. Trivia like when it meets should be removed.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 13:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Scouting in Wales. WP:GNG does say that coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee for a separate article. Editors at the Scouting WikiProject have reached (and reaffirmed) a longstanding consensus that although a local unit or Scout camp may have multiple reliable sources, it is not appropriate for a standalone article but, rather, should be included in the larger Council or Association article of which it is a part. I see no reason to make an exception in this instance.   JGHowes   talk  21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus is to merge, I would like you, Rlevse, Drawn Some, Ohconfucius, or Bduke to answer this question: why is merging this article more beneficial to the encyclopedia than leaving it as a separate article? Cunard (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One advantage of a merge is that the reader doesn't have to go to several different articles to understand the topic of Scouting in Wales, of which this particular unit is a part. For another, it makes Scouting in Wales more comprehensive. Thirdly, it provides better context for the reader, especially in light of the cited source's mention of sectarian bifurcation of the larger Association.  JGHowes   talk  22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining why this scout article should be merged. The above voters did not. After reviewing your arguments, I concur that merging this article is the right way to go. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as per above comments.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Merge as per above comments.-Phips (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.