Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scouting troops and service units

:{{la|List of scouting troops and service units}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scouting_troops_and_service_units Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of scouting troops and service units}})

Out of scope - WP:NOTDIR. Further, a full directory of all Scouting troops etc would contain about one million entries. jergen (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Just not a viable subject and therefore not particularly useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Could this ever become complete, with global scope? If it did, would anyone be able to maintain it? Aside from notability issues, it is simply impossible to create and maintain a page like this. DiverScout (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm starting to feel fickle, but doncram convinces me the article may be able to fulfil at least part of what I'd hoped it might accomplish. From the beginning, while the list is over-represented with North American troops, its scope is very much intended to be international. --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 20:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

::That "Keep" !vote and statement replaced a "Delete" !vote and statement which itself replaced a "Comment" (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_scouting_troops_and_service_units&diff=625288266&oldid=625088849 this diff] showing the delete replacing comment). UnicornTapestry, it's never okay to change your view in an AFD FINE of course for you to change your views and to updtate them, but it might be better to strike out previous comments when you add new ones, rather than deleting, so the discussion record is clear. :) --doncram 15:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. We do not even list Troops or Groups in articles about Scouting or Guiding in regions of countries, such as the States in Australia or the US, or the Regions of the UK. One reason is that the list would still be very large and would be almost impossible to accurately maintain. Also it is well established that very very few Troops or Groups are notable and lists are generally of things that have their own article and are therefore notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 13:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The reasoning in some of the above !votes doesn't hold water. There is no problem having a list-article that could conceivably include millions of items; it is easy to restrict membership to items that are individually wikipedia-notable or limit by some other criteria. "Being too large" is not a valid reason to oppose. We have List of hotels. We have List of bridges. It's no problem to maintain these. And we have list-articles List of Scouts, List of Eagle Scouts, List of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. There exist some wikipedia articles in :Category:Local units of the Boy Scouts of America and in :Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America which seem logical candidates to list in an explicit list. See wp:CLT for explanation of how categories, lists, nav-templates are complementary. Sure, the current version of the list-article should be reduced down, and criteria for inclusion should be discussed at the Talk page, but logically it makes sense to have a list-article of the notable Scouting troops. --doncram 22:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

::I would change my !vote if it really did only contain troops, units, etc that were notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, but that is a short list and they are often notable for different reasons. Even then, a category might be better. The title would be better named if it was "List of scouting and Guiding Units". Be carefull to not just have a US centred view. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks for comment...doesn't that acknowledge that there is a valid topic, while editing is needed, and maybe refinement of title is needed, but deletion is not needed. "AFD is not for cleanup". About a category being better, please read wp:CLT which is about how categories and list-articles are Complementary. Given the non-US title, i have no problem with warning that the list-article should be sure to avoid having just a US-centric view... this is fine to point out at Talk page of article along with discussion of inclusion criteria. --doncram 11:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

::::It would still be better to delete this and start again with a new title. Not a single current entry meets the criteria of having a wikipedia article. I think all the categories need to be removed, except the general Scouting one. I also think it should be restricted to normal Scout units, such as Scout Troops, Cub Packs, Rover Crews, etc or, where these are together in one Scout Group, the Group. In :Category:Local units of the Boy Scouts of America, only one entry meets that criteria. In :Category:Associations related to the Boy Scouts of America none of the entries meets that criteria. Loosely linked associations are difficult to define and are best left in the categories alone. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

::::: Here I must respectfully disagree about limiting the list to ‘normal Scouts’. It’s undeniable that groups like Frontier Girls, Navigators, Pathfinders, and Trail Life are scouts, simply ones that have split from the main group including some who think their vision is closer to Lord Baden-Powell’s. To deny their scouting heritage is like, say, denying Protestants are Christians. --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 16:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::: You misunderstand me. I did not say ‘normal Scouts’, meaning exclusion of smaller maybe non-WOSM Scouts. I said ‘normal Scouts units’. They could be units of Frontier Girls, Navigators, Pathfinders, etc. I want to exclude specialist groups such as District Scout Bands or say Koshare Indian Dancers which seems to be a specialist part of a troop, not the main groups such as troops, packs, etc which young people belong to as their first loyalty in a Scouting organisation of any kind. I want to include normal units that happen to be notable for some reason. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Delete Per the nomination. It is a list of non-notable items.Frmorrison (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete for having too broad a set of criteria. As jergen has pointed out, there are a lot of potential entries. And not a single one seems to have an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

::Not so, after i edit the list-article to link to Mounted Boy Scout Troop 290, for example. --doncram 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Arguments about the notability criteria for list-inclusion of items miss the point. Criteria for items should be discussed at Talk page of list. I think Boy Scout Troop 600 (Bellevue, Washington) is notable, and in fact deserves an article. See for example, [http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2009288894_eaglescouts02m0.html this Seattle Times article], and [http://www.troop600.com/ http://www.troop600.com/]. And Mounted Boy Scout Troop 290 does have an article. As do Koshare Indian Dancers, Long Beach Search and Rescue and Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps. I am now drastically editing the list-article downwards. I think some local units are individually notable, and it is useful and appropriate to have a list of them; i voted "Keep" above. --doncram 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• The notability guidelines for local units are at WP:BRANCH. --  Gadget850 ^talk 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I removed some of the links to this article, so it may be orphaned. If kept, then the link should go in the {{tl|Scouting}} navbox and I will make it happen. --  Gadget850 ^talk 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added several other entries, taken from my memory followed by looking at the Category for the relevant country. They are thus complete for existing articles for those countries unless articles have not been categorized correctly. Other country categories need to be searched. The introduction needs to be clarified about the organisations that qualify. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks. There are now items for a good number of countries, and the intro has been clarified. I think the AFD could be closed (with Keep) about now. --doncram 21:33, 24 September 2014 (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.