Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence in the Boy Scouts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was DELETE THE ARTICLE DUE TO UNVERIFABLE RESEARCH -Husnock 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violence in the Boy Scouts

This article is a fork from Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, has no references, is very POV, and only cites a couple of cases from the entire world. It does not deserve its own article. It should be merged back into the controversies article. It also talks about story telling, which is not violenece. Rlevse 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP The attempt to delete this article strikes strongly of article ownership issues and censorship. When this material was listed on Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, it was blasted from all sides as being "inappropriate" for the text of that article. Therefore, the material was moved to its own article. Reading the nomination, the user states that the material does not "deserve to be on Wikipedia". This is against everything Wikipedia stands for. The nomination, itself, appears to be over content dispute and lack of references, both of which are highly invalid reasons to delete an article. As far as the size of the article, there is no stipulation that articles have to start big. Plenty of articles start as stubs with little or no information. POV is also not an issue...since the article states several occurences and doesn't give private opinions like "the Boy Scouts encourages violence". Last but not least, this article should be given a chance instead of atatcked and voted for deletion by those who don't like what it has to say. -Husnock 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't say it didn't deserve to be on Wiki, but rather that it didn't warrant its own article. Your assumptions about my motivations are SORELY WRONG, but discussing it with you would likely be pointless. Your scope on this article is too focused and narrow (one main incident and an allusion to the HJ and German Scouts)...Rlevse 16:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • My allusion to that opinion was the statement: "It does not deserve its own article" As far as the article being narrow with two incidents, those are the only one's I know about. As stated on the article talk page, I did not intend to write a lengthy article off the bat, but rather start one and let others contribute. My entire annoyance with this nomination, was that the article was not even given a chance, but nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after creation. -Husnock 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment An article name change may do a world of good too. Rlevse 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Forks from main article that don't have enough material to be other than a stub are highly frowned upon. There is far more violence in the military and yet is there an article on that? Also, how are ghost stories violence? THis is what prompted my proposal for a name change, but I haven't thought of a good one yet. You do really need references for all this. You may want to save the text, work it offline, come up with a better title, reference it, and then start an article in this area. It that is doable, but I don't see this one going far. If you want to go that route, I'll even help you.Rlevse 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like original research, no references, should be merged back into the parent article if were going to keep it. Mike (T C) 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back per nom. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the main article, and creating a separate one isn't a way to get around discussing it properly. JPD (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and verify. Violence has taken place in the scouts and Husnock speaks the truth. Even if outright violence did not occur in the scouts, hazing does, and this is one of the lesser known issues of scouting. But I welcome everyone to come in, cite references and just make this article to be good. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, undesirable fork. We already have an article for this. Ned Wilbury 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What article could support this? When it was on Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, the material was blanket deleted at least three times. That was the prime reason this was moved it its own article. -Husnock 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
See my 17:19 comment.Rlevse 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. An article of this nature, because it is inflammatory, must cite sources. It's not censorship; it's a matter of being responsible and encyclopedic. If sources can be cited, then improvement is needed. Slowmover 17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An isolated incidence of bullying does not merit an entire article on the "Violence in the Boy Scouts". Also, the Hitler Youth is not the Boy Scouts, and almost all campfire tales everywhere are about serial killers, ghost stories, and the such. POV fork. — TheKMantalk 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, original-research POV fork. -- Krash (Talk) 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like that the mass of people will win here, and this promising article will get deleted. In any event, to answer those three points above, the article verifibility is already being discussed on the talk page. A police report or other offical document would be all that would be needed. Original research is very questionable, since at least two users have claimed knowledge of one of the events in the article and, again, talk page discussions have been made ot get offical sources. POV Fork is the most questionable of all, since the definition is an article created about the same subject as another due to content dispute. There is no other article about violence in the Boy Scouts and the material was removed over and over again from controversies about the Boy Scout with users claiming it didn't belong there. Deleted the article may be, but deleted it should not. -Husnock 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"It looks like that the mass of people will win here..." Yup. That's usually the case. -- Krash (Talk) 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful, sourced info with Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, per nom. PJM 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America. Merge only if the information can be sourced. Nobody's saying that this is undoubtedly false or doesn't belong in Wikipedia's articles about the Boy Scouts of America. With controversial topics, though, things must be sourced. Information on Wikipedia, no matter how controversial, is kept — given that it is notable and verifiable. It is up to the writer of the information to provide legitimate sources. "Two users have claimed knowledge of one of the events in the article." That is not a verifable, legitimate source for our purposes here. If you can provide a police report, that's great; a police report will certainly back up the fact that it happened and no one will have any right to delete it. However, you must find more sources to verify that events like these are what led to Youth Protection, back up the quotes from adult leaders, prove the explusions, and the like. We can't have Wikipedia editors drawing their own conclusions from the facts or personal research and experience, however ugly it may be. If the material was deleted in the past, it is likely that it was written without any way to back it up. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and only merge in whatever can actually be sourced. Staxringold 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and possibly merge (if sourced) per Rebelguys2. Bucketsofg 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge sourceable information as per PJM. Mallocks 20:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge Real. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and a note to "merge" voters - there's nothing verifiable here worth saving. Cyde Weys 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One unverified incident does not an article make. --InShaneee 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clean up hazardous waste, salt earth. Unverified original "research" which article author admits is based on personal observation and vague memories of tabloid TV shows. Monicasdude 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-- A few isolated incidents of violence aren't notable, even if they were verifiable, which they're not. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This essay lacks all sources; I just removed the paragraph on Germany - the few lines on this were totally speculative and didn't even mention any incidents in German Scouting. --jergen 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the the essay Alecmconroy wrote at Talk:Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America; in short, unverifiable. Melchoir 08:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Melchoir MLA 16:38, 9 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Violence_in_the_Boy_Scouts_859d.html"