Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City (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 Speedy Delete per A1, A3, A7, G1, WP:SNOW, and WP:BULLSHIT. Cbrown1023 talk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Vatican City

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I created merely this page since it is the second nomination. The nomination is by Largo Plazo below. I also rolled back the original discussion Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City where the second nomination was appended. No opinion. Tikiwont 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I marked this article for deletion and then found the earlier debate at Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City. I don't understand how "the result of the debate was 'keep'" when the "delete" opinions had good reasons and the "keep" opinions mostly gave no reason at all, or superficial reasons that didn't address the main problem. One said something to the effect that "It's good to have articles on scouting&#8212;there's a developing interest in them." This person was oblivious to the key issue: this is an article the whole purpose of which is to say that its topic doesn't exist. As someone else pointed out, what's next: An article on "Scouting on the moon"? How about an article on Antarctic wineries?

Someone else pointed out that while, as someone else noted, the scouting articles all began as copies of each other, they were now beginning to diversify. Again, this is beside the point, since the main argument for deletion has nothing to do with diversity of text but with the fact that the article is about something that doesn't exist.

Moreover, the final paragraph is about scouting in Italy, not in Vatican City, and the paragraph before that isn't about scouting at all, it's only about an award given to the Pope by a scouting organization.

There's no reason for this article to exist. &#8212;Largo Plazo 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am a little baffled that this article was kept, as well.  The article itself admits that Scouting has no presence in the Vatican and likely never will, so what is the point in having the article? Arkyan 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, no assertion of existence, never mind notability, and per WP:BULLSHIT. How in the hell could anyone vote to keep an article that basically says "There is no scouting in the Vatican City and it's unlikely there ever will be"????  Was any vestige of common sense applied?  The nonsensical argument that we need a Scouting article for every nation-state in the world, whether there is any active Scouting there or not, just, well, um, "because of completeness," is meretricious garbage that does nothing save to provide ample ammunition to Wikipedia's detractors, never mind damage the concept that closing admins pay attention to anything other than the voting tally.  RGTraynor 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arkyan Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this and I'd suggest checking to see if similar potential AFD nominees exist regarding the other 35 non-scouting countries. Does the Vatican even have any children? 23skidoo 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The remainder of the articles that survived the previous AfD are in bad shape. The best that could be done with them was to dig up images of postage stamps that "seem to suggest" (actual wording in the articles!) the existence of scouting in said country, as well as all linking to a single website run by a scout troop out of Colorado as a reference to prove the existence of scouting.  That source is pretty dubious as a reliable reference.  I'd not be opposed to lumping those articles into another AfD, as well as scouting out (pun intended) other speculative, skeletal and unreferenced articles on the topic. Arkyan 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant, this can be info on the main article. It doesn't require a seperate page. Alex43223T 21:36, 13 March 2007 (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.