Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOUT eh! (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

SCOUT eh! second nomination
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DiverScout (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DiverScout (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability concerns + source concerns, I spent some time googling and cannot reliably source any reliable sources for the article. Given the nature of the organization I have reason to believe such sources may not exist. Tawker (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per my nom - pretty hard to have an article we can't reliably source, for all that could reasonably sourced would be one sentence in which case notability concerns would come to light -- Tawker (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually seems to be pretty easy to source, and I'm working from the other side of the Atlantic with limited access to Canadian media. I cannot understand why the people who created the page never added sources. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Googling must have been giving me funny results, by all means, if you've found it, that removes my main concern - still needs some work to address notability but it sounds likely -- Tawker (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - additional sources have been found which address concerns in nomination making rationale in original nom invalid -- Tawker (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As Kuyabribri mentioned on the talk page, it definitely reads like an advocacy page for this organization. It contains a lot of contentious content with very little sourcing, except for the organization's own website. Mike (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per nom. Group is not any sort of officially sanctioned organization. It is essentially a forum for an extremely tiny group of whiners and complainers to post their personal views against an established organization. If it were an active group with a large membership who had activities that were truly notable that would be one thing. But considering the extremely small disenchanted numbers coming from a group which has hundreds of thousands of people in their present/past membership... this b*tch-board is not even remotely close to being notable. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per my nom. The article carries no evidence of notability which is seen through attempting to research the group. My research included searching through the databases maintained by the Canadian Government, searching through official news websites (the globe and mail, canoe, toronto star, and cbc news) for "significant coverage" of SCOUT eh! and searching multiple search engines (yahoo, google, bing) for websites which may entertain evidence that SCOUT eh! is more than a small group. -- Munvo (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Merge to Scouts Canada page. This is a pressure group within said organisation, and it is only notable in relation to that organisation.  This organisation has been operational within SC for about 8 years, so is not a flash-in-the-pan thing. Previous log states that newspaper articles were available in 2005.  A bit "other stuff exists" but ought to note that external sources for many Scouting articles are often poor with even main organisation articles referring heavily to internal documents and press releases (see Scouts Canada references for example).  Some comments on this read as heavily PoV orientated rather than rational policy arguments - "whiners", "complainers", "bitch-board"?  Really?  Important note - the link-to on the article header does not work.  No judgements should be made until a wider group of users have been given a chance to comment on this AfD. DiverScout (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look for sources. Found a whole government paper relating to a SCOUT eh! representation and several newspaper reports relating to SCOUT eh! concerns about Scouts Canada finances in 2007.  It seems that the government and newspapers consider this to be a notable organisation, therefore I am moving more towards a Keep DiverScout (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, finding a fair-size raft of media sources reporting on the activities of this group. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep . Condense and merge This has no references to establish wp:notability to exist as a separate article, it seems unclear whether or not such sources are likely to exist.  But looks like it should not be totally erased from Wikipedia.  They are of some scale and probably of some significance in the national scouting situation.   Maybe a short summary in Scouts Canada or a couple paragraphs in a suitable sub-article if there is one. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)  Recent expansion of references and notes by knowledgeable people on this page have changed my mind to "Keep". North8000 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup (vote changed based on addition of citations) — article still needs work, though. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge to Scouts Canada page. There were apparently media articles on the subject in past, but I see no references to them in the article. If there were some third-party citations to establish the notability of the subject, I would consider changing my vote to keep. Regardless, the content needs extensive work on providing citations or trimming unverified details, as well as editing for NPV. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also on readability...uses internal jargon terms without explaining them. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted comment on language but am not sure which phrases are being declared as internal; jargon needing to be explained, as it looks like pretty plain English to me. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE The comment above should be disregarded as the editor is a member of the tiny group in question and is therefore a WP:COI vio. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This group has testified before a committee of the Senate of Canada and has been mentioned numerous times in the news media. It has has a notable impact on Canadian Scouting and needs to stay. The article should have more references added. Lkmorlan (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any doubt this person is telling the truth about them testifying before the Canadian Senate? That information should be regarded since it does convey notability.   D r e a m Focus  04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor perhaps could add that fact to his profile page, but has put on a user box indicating they attempt to comply with our editing policies. At least one of the nominators is in Scouts Canada, therefore WP:COI vio. One other is bordering on personal attacks.  Clearly this is an emotive subject for some SC people.  Should we, therefore, ignore input from SC people - or just judge the page according to Wikipedia policy?  The statements he has made about the organisation are clearly true (verified by my being able to easily add them, despite being non-SC, non-SCOUT eh!, and non-Canadian) and this page certainly now meets Notability and is now sourced, having significant coverage of its campaiging in varied and reliable sources. DiverScout (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep News coverage has been found. This group seems to be notable.   D r e a m Focus  04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Early conclusion possible? - Nomination of this article for AfD was based on lack of notability and reliable sources, and assumption that such sources could not be found. Article now quotes media and government sources, and meets Notability (having gained significant independent coverage or recognition) - WP:NRVE. DiverScout (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My recommendation is (changed to) "Keep". But I think that this should go through the standard process so that an early close does not itself become an issue leading to a third AFD.  I've seen this lesson learned the hard way elsewhere.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was doubtful about this when it was first put to AfD, but a good job has been done on it. Well done. It is now fine. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Keep", good news coverage and covers an interestings aspect of Scouts Canada, which is an National Scout Organisation with a long history and strong membership. Thanks for your work DiverScout.-Phips (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looks like this article has been significantly improved.  Nice job.  Isn't it nice to see articles improved?--Milowent • hasspoken  17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per rescue work by User:Northamerica1000 and User:DiverScout. Applied sources put this past the bar for GNG and ORG. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2012 (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.