Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escouts


 * 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   delete. X clamation point  01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Escouts

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

Does not meet the criteria of Notability (web). No secondary or tertiary sources are used. Reads like an advertisement. jergen (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with proposal --  Chzz  ►  20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless content can be improved before close of AfD - have archived current content to Scoutwiki. DiverScout (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The odds of this being improved enough to merit inclusion are pretty much nil. The problem isn't so much the quality of the article (though it reads as a big ad), the problem is that the subject itself doesn't seem notable at all. It is a service for a very limited market (scouting) and Gnews searches comes up with nothing. (I did find an eWeek article but it turns out that it was for "eScout", an unrelated sales company.) Fails WP:CORP. --  At am a chat 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment tried to add some 3rd party sources, i know none of them are great and only to do with stats. The problem is most news about this site travels via word of mouth which makes it very hard to find sources. TSA HQ know about the site, chief scout even sometimes posts their, but can't find any record of them mentioning it, although i know they have. but almost all news is communicated via Word of mouth within the scouting community. and Atama, on the last count there where 453,273 scouts in the UK, 28 million world wide. not exactly "limited market". ;-) --Philb28 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, it's a "limited market" by definition. By targeting only a particular group, whatever the size, you're limiting yourself. Compare to most international businesses who have literally billions of potential cusomers available. This is all academic however, because whatever the clientele, if any solid information about this business can only be found is word-of-mouth then it's not verifiable and the subject fails Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I'm not unsympathetic toward such things because I was involved in scouting for most of my youth, but this organization unfortunately doesn't fulfill some basic requirements. --  At am a chat 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow Up - If this article is deleted as it looks like it probably will be, it might be worthy to take some of this information and put a blurb in one of the scouting articles. Just a paragraph about what this place is and why it's important to scouts. --  At am a chat 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apologies, see what you mean now about the limited market. I read it as if you where trying to say scouting had few followers. I had a look at other scouting articles that it could be included in. not really sure which one you could put it in though. Is it not going to look a bit tagged on and not really relevant to the rest of the article? --Philb28 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could work on this within the Scouting WikiProject as there are a number of forums that could be compared, perhaps in the Scouting article? DiverScout (talk) 00:26, 7 March 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.