Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in Vatican City, Scouting in Equatorial Guinea, Scouting in Guinea-Bissau, Scouting in Mali, Scouting in São Tomé e Príncipe, Scouting in Somalia

There is no Scouting in any of these places at all. Why not Scouting on the Moon, Scouting before the Big Bang, Scouting in Middle-earth, or Vatican City at the 2000 Summer Olympics? Appears to be no verifiable information on Scouting in these countries. I did not nominate the articles which indicated some history of scouting, or a movement to establish scouting specifically in that country. I abstained from nominating Scouting in Eritrea because there was a picture. But these articles have to go. The ones I am nominating all appear to have been cookie cut by a single author who can only be described as the antithesis of mergism. In the main article, there could be a list of countries without Scouting, but these stubs are excessive. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. My vote was made before these additional articles were added. I'm standing by my vote for now, it is subject to change by consensus. T K E 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Scouting exists (be it embryonic or widespread) in the following countries but there is no National Scout Organization which is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement at the present time.
    • Vatican City
    • The Moon
    • Middle-earth
and so on, and redirect the individual articles. Other countries such as Laos have individual articles; the countries in this AfD could simply be marked on the main article. It needs to expand on what "Scouting exists" means, though. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as per Tonywalton or create Scouting in nations without national organisation article, then redirect.--Xorox 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge? Have you read these articles? Their text is all identical and appears to be copied from this website. You realize that I was joking about the moon and Middle-earth, right? savidan(talk) (e@) 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
"Scouting on the Moon," there's a bandname. T K E 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep-the reason I did the articles as I did, cookie-cutter or no, is that very little is known about the organizations, but the fact that there is a Scouting organization there is in accordance with the WikiProject Scouting templates and guidelines. Chris 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason "very little is known about the organizations" is that they do not exist. Are there Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts in Vatican City? No. Jonathunder 23:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you've researched it? --Naha|(talk) 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Chris. Rlevse 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vatican City scouts? You've got to be kidding. Jonathunder 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • In the spirit of assuming good faith, I will not assume you are mocking the Vatican City, but rather mean something else by this comment? By itself, the comment does not seem very becoming of an admin. --Naha|(talk) 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chris NThurston 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as per Tonywalton or create Scouting in nations without national organisation article, then redirect, as per Xorox. Johntex\talk 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Griz 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I know I'm fighting upstream, but creating articles concerning subjects about which nothing can be said seems to me a bizarre way to build an encyclopedia. Fishhead64 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"subjects about which nothing can be said"? Something can be said about every subject, else you'd not have a Wikipedia. I think it might be appropriate to say "subjects about which little is yet known", but that is a 'yet' until someone from those nations run with it. Chris 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interest in Scouting articles on Wikipedia is quite recent and the numbers involved in even large countries outside the USA like the UK and Australia is quite small but growing. Before too long people from these small countries will add content. Most of them probably do have scouting but we need locals to give us the information. It is not like the Olympics where we know whether a country had participants or not. --Bduke 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have found some small pieces of evidence that Scouting in these countries has existed in the past and I have edited them all except the Vatican City article. There I tend to agree that Scouting would likely be linked to Italian Scouting although one link does suggest that they are working to WOSM recognition. --Bduke 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the harshness of my original nomination. It does appear that Scouting exists in some form in these countries although there is little verifiable information. I think it is dangerous to just "wait for someone from one of these countries to write something" because that borders on inviting original research. It seems like there is very little if any information on these which could not be said in an article like Xorox has suggested which had a list of countries where this held to be the case. Sorry for proposing a delete; it seems like merge and redirect would be the best move. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That would defeate the purposeful and very intentional idea that someone from those nations would seek out and edit the article on their own country, and it will make incomplete the lists, articles and templates that the Scouting WikiProject has been so diligent on compiling and completing.
A corellary to this would be that since Scouting in Vermont and Scouting in South Dakota have essentially stock articles at the moment, with nothing to set them apart, would we create an article "Scouting in places without very good articles"? No, it would leave gaps where there is a political entity with Scouting. Recognized or not, this is also the case with the national articles.
Having heard from savidan, I no longer believe this to be a bad faith nomination, but I still maintain even a merger into a bulk article to be ill advised, for the reasons stated above. I must stand against any deletions or mergers, and for the status quo ante. Chris 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I replied to this on my talk page. However, I do want to add in this discussion that all of the current verifiable information for these would be the same: hence one big article. The currents lists and templates would not be disrupted because we could easily redirect these pages to the merged articles. The reason I am hesitant to wait for someone from these places to write these, is that if none of us have been able to find any information, what they find is unlikely to be verifiable. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The nice thing about this afd is that it has generated some interest in the smaller Scout movements, and has started to make those articles unique! :) We are indeed improving the articles so that they meet the Wikipedia inclusion criteria, and that's really what it's all about. Been digging through my Scout collections tonight, now they've each got visible proof. Chris 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
YEAH CHRIS! Rlevse 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge per Tony Walton, then redirect them and mark as {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per crystal ball. Wstaffor 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per chris. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chris and Bduke. --Naha|(talk) 02:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.  The articles listed for deletion seem distinct enough now. - Kkken 09:01, 19 April 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.