Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOUT eh!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was although there is no consensus whether or not to merge this article, there is consensus no consensus Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SCOUT eh!

Non-notable, fails google test. Delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Could the title of the article be related to this joke? Aecis 23:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with Scouts Canada for now. That article isn't too large, and this seems to be a growing movement inside that organization. Soundguy99 01:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as per Soundguy99. - DS1953 03:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google test reveals a notable movement with at least two newspaper articles, many links, and several pages that describe their mission on other Scout-related sites. Most of the interest is in their stance to save local Scout camps from being sold by the national executive. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as per Soundguy99 . ··gracefool |☺ 07:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect, as above. If the article was expanded beyond a stub, I might switch to keep. -GrantNeufeld 14:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears that we are verging on consensus that we want to keep the content. So, this is really a vote not to merge and redirect. I only like redirects when it is obvious to someone following it why they were redirected. SCOUT eh! is a movement that is trying to reform the current administrative structure of Scouts Canada. With a redirect, this point would only become clear when they read the section of issues, which will likely always remain at the bottom of the article. It does no harm as a stand-alone article, yet it could provide clarity to some. -- JamesTeterenko 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Precisely. What harm does it do to have this short direct explanation of what SCOUT eh! is on its own page? If someone is looking for an encyclopedic answer as to what it is, I would hope and think they would come to Wikipedia for it. To be redirected to Scouts Canada seems unnecessary and slightly irrational. They surely already know what Scouts is and, if not, the wikilink on the article will tell them. The article is a stub and it is so indicated. It needs expansion on what the position, goals, issues, controversies, disputes are and how successful or unsuccesful it is so far but that it is fine. Let it expand. The Scouts Canada page links to it and can even discuss the dispute but what's appropriate and encyclopedic for an article about SCOUT eh! may not be for Scouts Canada and relegating it as a subsection there would, I believe, limit growth. My question for VfDs is what harm does it do to keep it and what harm does it do to move/lose it? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough, and like DoubleBlue and JamesTeterenko, this is a vote to keep rather than merge and redirect. While its members are all, in turn, members of Scouts Canada, this does not automatically equate SCOUT eh! to Scouts Canada. I vote not to redirect because I believe SCOUT eh! is a seperate organisation from Scouts Canada and notable enough to warrant its own article. --Deathphoenix 19:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep separate per Deathphoenix. Kappa 07:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified article I have added significantly to the article and removed the stub tag. Lkmorlan 02:29, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • Comment: If I read the article right, the person who wrote it is on the excutive, and would violate Wikipedia's anti-autobiography policy. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not an official policy, it's just a suggestion. -- Joolz 12:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --NormanEinstein 02:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.