Welcome to the Scouting WikiProject on the English Wikipedia. We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Scouting and Guiding. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them on our discussion page. If you would like to join us, please add your name to the list of project members!
To create the foremost reliable and accurate free-content encyclopedia of Scouting and Guiding in the English language.
To improve coverage of Scouting and Guiding by creating, expanding, and maintaining articles that describe all of its aspects.
To provide guidelines and recommendations for such articles, and to serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to Scouting and Guiding in Wikipedia.
Scouting and Guiding are worldwide youth movements composed of many organizations, all of whom have the common aim of developing young people physically, spiritually and mentally. This aim is achieved through non-formal education with an emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors using the Scout method.
Most regional Scouting and Guiding organizations are members of one of the international umbrella associations. There are also many independent Scouting organizations as well as a number of organizations that do not term themselves as Scouts or Guides, but use the Scouting methods; all of these fall within the scope of this project. There are several Scouting groups within the project scope and many exist within overlapping geopolitical areas.
Organizations who veer from the Scout method by becoming politicized or militarized are outside the project scope.
If you would like to participate, add yourself to the members section of this page.
You can help out by editing a Scouting or Guiding-related article, improving our current collaboration of the week (at right), helping to complete a task on our to-do list, or contributing to the discussion on one of our related talk pages. If you would like some suggestions, just ask on the talk page.
If you find a Scouting or Guiding-related article without our template, please place our template {{WikiProject Scouting}} at the top of the talk page. You can also add this to the talk page of images, categories, and templates.
If you find a Scouting or Guiding-related article without our infobox or portal tag, please place our portal tag, [[Portal:Scouting | The Scouting Portal ]], in the "See also" section of the article. This will advertise our portal and make it easy to navigate to.
If you find a Scouting or Guiding-related stub article that has not yet been marked as a stub, add {{Scout-stub}} to the bottom of the article. It will automatically be included in the Scouting stubs category, where you can find plenty of stub articles to expand if you are itching to do something.
The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.
Article improvement: Bduke - this does not mean that I am going to improve articles all on my own, but I am here to advise editors, after many years of editing WP, if needed, on improving articles. Just ask me on my talk page.
WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDEWP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evrik, I don't know what you mean with "wikify". Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited and cleaned-up.--evrik(talk) 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, but the material does need to be cut back and generally improved. Bduke (talk)
I think it was "forked" out of that article in the first place. --evrik(talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely organizational material, lacking any secondary sourcing--nor should we expect any. I wouldn't call this article an ad, but the effect of this plethora of organizational articles, in-universe articles as it were without any secondary sourcing, is a walled garden for such articles to lean on each other, and that certainly has promotional effects. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough content to stand on its own. For anyone who is keeping score, look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Article_watch. Graywalls likes Afding, and hacking at articles, but doesn't help improve them. --evrik(talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. ADifferentMan, the problem here is not "verifiability", it's notability. The sources are all primary. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:North8000, I read over your comment twice but I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this. "Millions have been through it" isn't one, and I don't know what "good sub-article" means or why that means we should keep it. IAR is not an excuse to have all this material in our encyclopedia. I suppose you mean me as part of that duo? Well that's sweet. Can we please get any reliable secondary sourcing? Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what we need. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the ping would need to be on or after June 17th. Soon I'll be gone until then. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please name three sources suggesting WP:SOURCESEXIST to support WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG to sustain this as stand-alone article. I am advocating for re-direct to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post completely ignores my argument and so is not a response to my post. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument essentially says "I like this stuff and I find it valuable and should be retained" and not grounded in guidelines supported by the wider community and IAR shouldn't liberally invoke to try to retain "I like it and its informative" article that isn't supportable in ordinary guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a completely invented insulting mis-statement of my argument, so far off that it bears no relationship to my argument. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:evrik, can you explain what you mean with "attack" and how that jibes with [{WP:AGF]]? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made my recommendation, gave the basis for it and made my offer. Now I've seen two people misstate what I said. Including misstating that my mention of IAR was explicitly only to follow a common and useful-for-Wikipedia norm which is not explicitly supported by policy. Even if I wasn't going to be gone until June 17th I'd be stepping away from this now,content to go with whatever is decided and leaving my offer open to Wikify if it is kept and if pinged. I'm extending that offer to include doing a careful merge if that is decided and if pinged. In the larger picture the duo has had some valid points that could point toward some refining of BSA articles but unfortunately, I've seen what IMO appears be a hostile view towards the BSA articles, a pretty heavy targeting of them, and where their only activity on them has been towards large scale deletion of material and deletion of articles with no activity towards improving them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
