Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Florida Council

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 no consensus. While the article has seen considerable improvement it over the course of this AfD there remains no consensus that the sourcing demonstrates notability after considerable discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Florida Council

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

South Florida Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. --evrik (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a directory, and all this is is a substitute for the group's website. There are no secondary sources, nor should we expect any. Let's be clear: there is no inherent notability for such organizational units, and subjects need to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I hate to admit, but it looks all the sources we used were just from the group's website. It doesn't even look like they were any passing references to it even in local media. I'd recommend deleting this or redirecting it to a main Boy Scouts page if there is one that covers BSA regional councils at a high level (i haven't checked yet). Michepman (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The protocol wold be to merge it to: Scouting_in_Florida#South_Florida_Council. However, I just removed all the redundant citations to the council's own website. --evrik (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michepman, I appreciate your note. It's just very unlikely that any of the councils at this level will pass the GNG. As for merging--there are no secondary sources that cover the council as such; recently added source only address one person and the camps, and that does not help the notability of the council. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that it is "IMHO." Clearly, the number of references, the size of the article, it's subpages and the links to the article establish it's notability. --evrik (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could write ten-thousand words of flowery prose about the
WP:TNT).Rockphed (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sadly, I looked at World Federation of Rose Societies, and there is no Liechtenstein Rose Society. It would have been funny had there been one. ;-) --evrik (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--evrik (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While this page needs to be pruned to remove items not directly related to the operation or background of the Council, folks need to keep in mind that many local BSA Councils like this one has limited, trained or coached people to maintain and observe their site. Instead of deleting the site, recommend that people contact the Council and ask them to provide more information than what is found by viewing the website. Stray comments from people in opposition of the BSA or their policies should be removed to maintain the neutrality of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settummanque (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief analysis of sources

  1. "A press release". 13 August 2018. on the Scouting website about the appointment of a person to the Council.
  2. "A report on the Council". from
    GuideStar
    , which publishes numbers on NGOs (this is a website that reports primary information).
  3. "Order your book on patches here".--that's all this can do.
  4. "Well this link goes nowhere and should be removed". but ostensibly this is an obit on a member--no reason at all to believe it offers proper information that establishes notability.
  5. "Here is another BSA web page"., this one the real directory.
  6. "An obit on a person". on the website of the Rotary Club, which offers "He helped finance the rebuilding of the Boy Scout Camp in the Florida Keys"--and that is all it is.
  7. "Boy Scout camp after Irma". (to state the obvious: this isn't about the Council).
  8. "God only knows what this is". --it's not a secondary source, it doesn't discuss the Council. "Camp Everglades is in the Pine Rocklands of Everglades National Park" is not contended, and it is irrelevant.
  9. "Wilma Ravages Boy Scout Camp"--a newspaper article about a camp after a storm; it has 413 words, according to the Miami Herald, and I doubt that much of that is devoted to the Council.
  10. "Another camp after a storm". 25 June 2012. ; if we're generous we can see content about the Council: "Since then, the South Florida Council, Boy Scouts of America, have cleared away fallen Australian Pines and ripped out a decades-old water system." If we are really generous.
  11. "Another camp after a storm". New York Daily News., and if we're generous, "It is expected to reopen by January, according to Jeff Hunt, executive director of the South Florida Council of Boys Scouts of America."
  12. "What this is, is unclear". Archived from the original on 2012-03-10., but a web page archived from the O-Shot-Caw Lodge is not an independent secondary source.

In other words: mentions in secondary sources about the Council: two. Discussion of the actual Council in secondary sources: zero. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFBOMB
-- (1) citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree and (2) citations which don't even namecheck the subject at all, but are present solely to verify a fact that's entirely tangential to the topic's own notability or lack thereof. For example, a statement of where the person was born might be "referenced" to a source which verifies that the named town exists, but completely fails to support the claim that the person was actually born there..
I respect the work that editors have put into this article, and I think there's some value in folding some of the information into the main page referenced above by user:evrik. I hate deleting articles, especially ones that contain a lot of useful information, but even with the expanded sourcing I just can't see this as passing the GNG. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
user:Drmies - Thank you for the analysis. That was a fair amount of work. Looking at what you have posted I have two thoughts, first many of these citations are about specific facts and not on the broader council. Second, the sheer number of mentions of the council show its notability. --evrik (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMB? Hardly. First, refbomb is not policy, it is an essay. Second, I stripped most of the cruft from the page, and then started to find references relating to each of the different sections. The subject is notable. Can you imagine where the article would be now if user:DrMies had spent the same effort improving the article as trying to get it deleted? --evrik (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Looking things over, I found 3 sources that are more than name checks, though they do not look like they are very much more.
Sorry for the incredibly convoluted links. Two are to a scouting magazine, and the third is to an analysis of scouting's response to homosexuality. Rockphed (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Looking at them, it appears one is listed twice. --evrik (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the last cite Pryce, Dick (March–April 1993). The Day Andrew Came to Town. Scouting. pp. 36–37, 62–63. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
As I said, I don't think they are much more than passing mentions. Rockphed (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --evrik (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that

WP:REFBOMB
is a policy or that the article should be deleted for that reason. My point, as I said earlier, is that the article’s sources are mostly about other stuff that are only incidentally related to South Florida Council. No one is disputing that the Council exists, or that it does good work in the community. But the sourcing present in the article and the sources linked in this page are (for the most part) not **about** the South Florida Council. They mention it in the context of other topics — a natural disaster in south Florida, or a story about the Boy Scouts in general, etc. they are useful for corroborating / verifying information about the Council, and again I commend the work spent here, but they don’t establish that it is notable.

One thing that might be helpful is if you described why the article passes the

WP:Notability (organizations and companies myself and tried to make a case that it is notable but I haven’t been able to justify it with the information I’ve found so far. If you can do that, then I will support keeping the article. Michepman (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Examining some of the refs cited here by evrik (but not yet integrated into the article) since the AfD was first listed do support GNG. Whilst individually the refs are not highly persuasive, taken in the aggregate the article barely meets GNG. The camps owned and operated by a council are part of the council's article, rather than having separate standalone articles. News media coverage of Hurricane Irma's destruction of the South Florida Council's camp on Scout Key is therefore specifically relevant to this article and indeed demonstrates the Council's notability.
Likewise, repeated news media mention in reliable sources about the South Florida Council, as it relates to news developments and controversies, also  contribute to notability. That these reliable sources consider the Council Executive's statements worthy enough to quote as newsworthy, further demonstrates that keeping this article best serves Wikipedia's value to the reader.   JGHowes  talk 17:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:JGHowes, you are suggesting a kind of inherent notability for such organizational entities. I still do not see why a council gets that privilege. Is there a secondary sources that explains when and how if was founded? Who the most important people were on the board or in the organization? What its financials are? What all things it operates, and why, and how? These are the things we expect secondary sources to deliver in order for an organizational entity to pass the GNG--except for secondary schools. Councils are not like secondary schools. These articles you point at, not a single one of them says anything substantial about the council. One or two of them point at grants, requested or received. One has a few membership numbers. That's it. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies you haven't made your case. The facts aren't with you. Why don't you work on revamping the article instead of spending so much time trying to refute what others have said. --evrik (talk)
Drmies I refute this as you simply bringing up the same arguments again and again. --evrik (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is nothing to write. Stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a fresh look at the revised article, which now has much less reliance on self-pub and OR than before the AfD prompted the rewrite and search for RS refs to meet GNG. Some have now been incorporated into the article, especially as concerns the hurricane recovery at this Council's camps and are thus unquestionably relevant. Interestingly enough, I did contact the Council to see if they had old newspaper clippings in their archives from the 1910s-1930s regarding the Council's founding and merger history, but all those records were lost when Wilma destroyed the building housing the archives.  JGHowes  talk 16:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV
demands that the sources provided have some substance so that notability can be established, and Drmies's last point on this has not been refuted - but it is possible (per JGHowes) the last edits did find such sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three that are available on the internet, I am concerned about the independence of Charity Navigator's page. The other two are trivial mentions. Based on what the book is supporting, I think it is also a trivial mention. The last one looks like one of the sources already discussed. I saw a mention that this used to be the "Dade County Council", but searching for that in newspaper archives gets only routine,
WP:MILL coverage. I applaud JGHowes and Evrik for their research, but, ultimately, I don't think we have found any sources that actually show notability. Rockphed (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Some IP editor who only comments on deletion debates has chosen to comment here. I may ask for a sockpuppet check. --evrik (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • user:evrik, two things. a. I asked you to stop pinging me; you should respect that. b. Do not EVER remove an IP's comment for such specious reasons. You can ask for a check, but it will be denied immediately. If you're wondering how I can say this with such certainly, it's because I am a CheckUser and we don't honor requests for IP checks, esp. not if there is no evidence. (Like, seriously--who do you think this person is, and based on what evidence? Without that, it will always be denied, even if it's an account and not an IP.) Also, IPs are people too.

      Well, now that I am here, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. Rockphed, thank you also. Yes, I do believe my comments have not been properly addressed. Having said that, I have to say, User:JGHowes, holy moly, you did a fine, fine job. I still do not think (having just looked over the new version and some of the new sources) that this council passes the GNG, but if it gets through this AfD it will be because of your work, and I appreciate it. If you ever fly down to MGM or Maxwell, ping me and I'll buy you a cup of coffee or an ice cream. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • I haven't pinged you since you asked me not to. FYI I did reference the removal. I just went and stripped all of the pinging templates out of the discussion. My reason for removing the comments are found here. --evrik (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there are some other refs added in the last couple of days, besides those enumerated above by Rockphed:
These new refs are, for the most part, independent secondary sources which, taken together, do respond to Drmies' concerns regarding what GNG rightly expects of an org's article, e.g., its most important leaders (and corporate sponsors, in the case of a non-profit), its budget, and especially what the org operates (i.e., the camps, in this instance). This is not to claim inherent notability or
IAR
applies, but rather that there has been more than mere passing mention that the news media has deemed newsworthy in a major metropolitan area, thereby meeting the notability requirements of GNG.
Drmies, I was at Gunter AFB as an ROTC cadet marching and doing PT under a blazing hot July sun, so I'll take you up on that kind offer anytime but summer!  JGHowes  talk 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really impressed by the additional sourcing on this. I still think it's very debatable that this organization is notable per the strict letter of the GNG (which admittedly is frustratingly vague) but I do think that, given the track record of specific citations to it over a long period of time over multiple independent resources, that it probably does merit enough verifiable independent coverage to meet the specific notability guidelines for the organizations.
As noted above, a lot -- nearly all, actually -- of the sources presented actually are about other topics (often articles that are really about the Boy Scouts and not specifically about the Council) but I think that there's enough meat on the bone to support the article. This is definitely a tough one though and I can still see both sides. Michepman (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that at this point, the discussion has bent towards, keep, however, if whomever decides to close this goes the other way, I'm going to suggest that the content is merged and a redirect is left in place of this page. Merge it to: Scouting in Florida#South Florida Council. --evrik (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comment I've added more to the history section for the 1910s-1930s, with old newspaper clippings cited from Library of Congress archives.  JGHowes  talk 12:18, 2 October 2019 (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/South_Florida_Council&oldid=1189068071"