Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Cathays Al Huda

Add links
Source: 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 was merge into Scouting in Wales. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st Cathays Al Huda

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log
)

Non-notable recently founded local Scout unit. jergen (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Local branches of national organizations are not usually notable, and even if this one is, see
    WP:ORG
    :

Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.

Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cub scout group is clearly notable. Did you even look at the sources I listed above? Those five sources prove this group's notability per
    undue weight in the parent article. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Which parent article do you think it should go in? The undue weight has to do with POV, which is not an issue here, that is absolutely irrelevant. Drawn Some (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should go in any parent article. Why should this article about a notable Scout unit be merged? It passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've wrongly interpreted the guideline. See my comment below to Bduke. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not got time now to study this, but the appropriate merge target would be Scouting in Wales, which covers all Scouting in Wales, but not Guiding, if a merge is agreed. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had some time to study this and think about it. We have had lots of articles on Scout Groups (BTW, it is a Scout Group, not a Cub Scout Group, and it has Beaver Scout, Cub Scout and Scout sections) and almost all of them have been merged. A Group has to have a long history to be notable enough for a separate article. This article already contains material that is promotional advertising, which should be removed. It is a newish Group. What else can be said about it? I support merge to
    WP:ORG, given above, really does fit this situation. It should be merged for now, until this material gets too large. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "The Group meets four times every week at the Roath Park Community Centre in Roath" is just advertising, whether you intended it that way or not. Please explain why. After taking another look at that sentence, I still cannot see what is promotional or unencyclopedic about it. That sentence is not promoting the company; it gives facts about how many times and where the scouts meet. If I wanted to advertise the camp, I would write: "The scout group meets many times every week at the large, spacious, fun, air-conditioned Roath Park Community Centre in the beautiful city of Roath."
  • Other parts get close to that. I would like more specific examples. When I write articles, I include only relevant, encyclopedic content that informs the reader. I don't believe that I did anything different here.
  • More importantly, what you call
    WP:ORG
    .
  • I really do think the best outcome is to expand the sentence in Scouting in Wales, which I added when I merged all the articles on separate Scout Areas in Wales, into that article. Why? An article about this notable scouting group is much better than one small paragraph crammed into a large article about numerous organizations.
  • I did not come to that conclusion lightly. Neither have I.
  • This Group may well be the best Group article that has been written over the years. If this is so, this article should not merged. It is well-sourced and neutrally written.
  • All the others have been merged, except for one or two that have notability outside of Scouting. The others have been merged because they lack reliable sources to prove their notability per WP:ORG.
  • This is not an easy decision. However I still do not think it is best left as a stand-alone article. What is wrong with it being a stand-alone article? All you have cited in this deletion debate is that previous consensus has determined that all scout articles, even those that pass WP:ORG, should be merged. I disagree with such a consensus. You should explain why this particular article should be merged.
  • Even the
    WP:OTHERSTUFF
    argument. I disagree that that notable scouting article was merged, but that is for another debate.
  • Since you like using
    WP:OTHERSTUFF
    arguments, I'll use one here too:
  • Merge to Scouting in Wales where it should be a paragraph with refs. Trivia like when it meets should be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:GNG does say that coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee for a separate article. Editors at the Scouting WikiProject have reached (and reaffirmed) a longstanding consensus that although a local unit or Scout camp may have multiple reliable sources, it is not appropriate for a standalone article but, rather, should be included in the larger Council or Association article of which it is a part. I see no reason to make an exception in this instance.  JGHowes  talk 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
One advantage of a merge is that the reader doesn't have to go to several different articles to understand the topic of Scouting in Wales, of which this particular unit is a part. For another, it makes Scouting in Wales more comprehensive. Thirdly, it provides better context for the reader, especially in light of the cited source's mention of sectarian bifurcation of the larger Association.  JGHowes  talk 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining why this scout article should be merged. The above voters did not. After reviewing your arguments, I concur that merging this article is the right way to go. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1st_Cathays_Al_Huda&oldid=1088888837"