Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States


 * 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   keep. Well sourced article, meets notability, could possibly be re-named, I suggest re-naming proposals be discussed on article talk page and then article moved Tawker (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list has a number of unresolved issues making it unusable to unencyclopedic: For further issues see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting. jergen (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is badly defined; it is totaly unclear what "scout-like" should mean. The main sources for this compilation don't use the term, so it is possible that it was invented by the main editor; that would contradict WP:NOR.
 * A number of the organizations listed is not exclusive to the US but active in other countries, some of them worldwide. The main editor insists to reduce even the articles on those organizations ro redirects. IMO this contradicts WP:NPOV.
 * Against. There is no reason really given under the deletion policy. There no unresolved issued just Jergens and others' illogical dislike and failure to have sources to support their position. The article is fully sourced. We are not in the definition business, but then Jergens and other decide that they are judges in the matter. If Jergens had actually waited or even look around the "scout-like" term originated in theTemplate:Scouting in the United States and has been in use since the template's second edit (12 October 2008) by Gadget850. Spshu (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that I was suppose to ID myself as the article's creator. Spshu (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The term Scout-like originates from a troop web site. I can't consider it a reliable source. --  Gadget850talk 19:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the source use "scouting" or "alternative to scouting" or "girl scouts". If an alternative to scouting isn't scout-like it isn't much of alternative. This is the equivalent of getting up set at used the term "state" for the term "nation" where nation=country+state then decided that it is original research. Jergens interjects his original research in claims of international and wish the Scouting WP define "scout-like". Since, it has been point out that he cannot do that (as NOR & NPOV), he is now claiming that sources are now original research as they have been group together by several of the articles (AP, NBC News, Religious News). At this point, an argument over the correct title as a reason for deletion is so egregious in nature that I believe some sort of sanction should be imposed against Jergen. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Fantastic piece of work, a real credit to Wikipedia. What we have here may be a titling problem. List of Independent Scouting Organizations in the United States? How does that work for ya? Just superb work. If this for some bizarre reason closes Delete, be sure to userfy to the author because there are multiple notable pieces that can be spun off of this. Huge GNG pass and a bravo. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Also: Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States ... Carrite (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Sadly this does not cover the fact that some of these associations do not condier themselves to be Scout associations, and more that they consider themselves Scout like. That is a conceit from within Scouting.  They could equally all be labelled "Boys Brigade-like". DiverScout (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been following the discussion about this article but have not contributed much as I do not live in the US. On balance I think this should be closed as Keep, but there are some issues. First, it seems clear, at least to me, that where there is is an article on an organisation that has a presence in countries other than the USA, then that article should not be changed to a redirect to this USA exclusive article. However it looks as if that is now not the case, but I could be wrong. Second, there is a problem with "Scout-like". Perhaps the suggestion just above is better. I also suggest that the lede clearly states that these organisations are alternatives to the Boy Scouts of America, as this is about US organisations. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The article as it stands does not make much sense since many of the organizations aren't scout-like except in the sense of being for youth (many are probably better characterized as youth ministry), but, renaming it to Youth organizations in the United States (or creating that as a new article) and radically changing it so that it is a survey article including history with short descriptions of organizations and pointers to separate articles for those significant enough to have articles (many that don't have articles right now are affiliated with a particular religious denomination and so could be a sub-section in the denomination's article). It should clearly point out which ones are international with some in the US or are affiliated with an international organization (e.g., BSA and GSUSA) or are strictly US.  The problem may be finding reliable sources for history and grouping of the organizations though something like The Routledge History of Childhood in the Western World might be a starting point. --Erp (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, Split or Retitle Editor created a list using criteria that do not exist in the real world, and has attempted to remove full articles on non-US youth organisations in favour of his creation. A proposal to rename the article as Youth organizations in the United States was made on the talk page, which overcomes some of the weaknesses displayed - but the survival of this would require that the international association pages being deleted under the excuse of transferring data to this regional one stops. DiverScout (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The criteria exists in the real world as most of them have been group together in four different articles (AP, NBC News, Religious News and Patheos) as scouting alternatives. But then you don't seem to care what source say or do. The so call "full articles" have primary, no or little sources, so they should not even be article here and surely not "full articles. --Spshu (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no matter how often you rant there is NO SUCH THING as "Scout-like" as a definition. I realise that to you all of us are wrong, and only you have this right, but I'm afraid that fictional categories are not appropriate. DiverScout (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-sourced piece of work which does a nice job of comparing and contrasting related topics. Fundamentally encyclopedic.  The issue of redirecting the "main articles" should not be included into this discussion.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, how is it encyclopedic to list youth organisations according to fictional criteria (or, at best, criteria that are an internal viewpoint to one organisation)? DiverScout (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (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.