Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cub Scout and Brownie Law


 * 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 to Polish Scouting and Guiding Association. North America1000 08:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cub Scout and Brownie Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely translated from PLWP pl:Prawo zucha. Appears to be excessive indiscriminate info than Cub Scouts and Brownies, and at best wouldn't warrant its own article anyway.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you find this article is qualifying to be deleted? Isn't enough to add short information, that this article is about Polish Scouting? Then the article won't be indiscriminate. Superjurek (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be more precise I've changed the title, which informs that the text is about wide part of Scouting. Superjurek (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I know literal translating of other language Wikipedia projects isn't enough reason to make immediate deletion... Superjurek (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. My concern is that Wikipedia is not a place to just store the full original text of the set of laws. There has to be encyclopedic discussion, supported by significant reliable sources that specifically and extensively talk about the laws (e.g. the history of how they come by, statistics of how widespread they are, etc.). Also there is also not much evidence that the law is separately notable from, say, Scouting and Guiding in Poland.
 * Admittedly that I cannot read Polish means I could be too narrow in this judgement. I am happy to be proven wrong and reconsider my stance with more RS incorporated (especially those in Polish).  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 11:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well – I agree with you. Wikipedia shouldn't store text as a book but essentially as an encyclopedia (so describe the genesis, features, meaning, praxis). It is comprehensible. However I translated an article which has been freely existing on PL-WP. They also have strict rules about maintaining articles and nobody has removed it for 12 years... Exactly the fact that the same article after translating onto EN-WP is being attacked is incomprehensible. Are you sure that immediate deletion is suitable??? Otherwise in the article could stay the intro-description without translated points of The Cub Scout and Brownie Law. The inter-PL-EN-WP would stay without deletion. When it comes to the content of The Cub Scout and Brownie Law I may move it onto Wikisource, where such a text is welcome. What do you think about it? Superjurek (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is admittedly controversial as a separated article, but a better option is to merge it. Then the citation in Wikisource could be maintained. Superjurek (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Moreover I added reference to source. Superjurek (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Every article needs to be about a notable topic, I find plenty of secondary sources talking about Brownies and polish scout cubs (both notable topics) but I don't find any secondary(not from the org itself) coverage about the Law themselves. That being said, per WP:NOTABILITY "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" we can take these information and put it into notable articles, but this topic (the law of the cubs and brownies) is not notable. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Polish Scouting and Guiding Association where there is already sections on the Law and Promise of the Scout/Guide sections. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  09:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. This would match other Scouting articles. --  Gadget850talk 11:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. It would be a better alternative. Superjurek (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per BDuke's rationale. I have asked the editor not to content fork minor aspects as he planned to.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2015 (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.