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 keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting and Guiding in Belarus (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)

Another article related to Scouts-in-Exteris, though I am loath to nominating them as a batch. Here is another non-notable organization, though this one seems to cite secondary sources; look closer, though, and discover that the Kroonenberg book, The Undaunted: Keeping the Scouting Spirit Alive, is hardly an objective secondary source. In other words: non-notable, borderline promotional. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to International Union of Guides and Scouts of Europe#Member organizations. Per nom, this fails GNG, as it sourced to a book which is a primary source and an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can't see how this is not going to be notable, but the sparcity of English language sources makes it difficult. The book Scouting for Girls: A Century of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts [1] has some non-trivial coverage on page 163 an 164 and there is this article on a Russian language site, but the article is in English. I can't get a handle on how RS compliant that site is (because of the language) but it looks ok as far as I can tell. SpinningSpark 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Normally I would not be swayed by an argument like Spinning's. If the reference do not exist and people cannot find them, then it fails the notability guidelines. But, common sense tells me that this is very much the case for this article. While references may be difficult to obtain, there is no doubt in my mind that they exist. I will take a gentle stab at finding some, at least enough to tide the article over until someone who cares about Scouting or Belarus pops up. Ifnord (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ifnord: I think you are misreading what I said. I am not presenting a "sources must exist" argument (although I do think that); I presented two reliable, independent sources that, in my opinion, get across the line of notability. In addition, there are enough reliable primary sources (which are fine to use for verifiability, but not notability) to build a decent article. SpinningSpark 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, in response to the original nom, sources are not required to be neutral in order to be reliable per WP:BIAS, also explicitly stated in the WP:NPOV policy. So unless the nom has something else against Kroonenberg's book, it is fine as far as I'm concerned. Also, excluding any source that has any connection at all with the scouting movement is just plain ridiculous. That's like excluding all sources written by a scientist in a science article. And I note that this article is not about a specific organisation, it is about scouting in general and covers a number of organisations. SpinningSpark 15:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/ Very weak Keep - The second site listed by Spinningspark definitely doesn't seem to meet reliability - it seems to be just a pure file upload site with no editorial oversight. The book reference is just a single paragraph, but does probably meet the non-trivial distinction. I've tried to find some other sources, but am having trouble. This PDF from Google scholar seems to be a random student paper, no evidence of publication or editorial review. I have found some Russian sources that seem promising, Classification, Essence And Functions Of Children's And Youth Associations In The Republic Of Belarus, Social Partnership of Institutions of Additional Education for Children and Youth and Children's Public Associations in the Space of Social Education in Belarus, and Youth Diplomacy As a Tool of Forming Positive Image of the Republic Of Belarus in European Political Space, but these are in Russian and not friendly to Google translate. Adding to the Russian delsort list in hopes of reaching a wider Russian-speaking audience. My inclination is that the sources probably theoretically exist to support this, but at this point I can't say for certain, so I am !voting the weakest possible keep. MarginalCost (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarginalCost: Thank you for establishing the reliability of the Russian site, but I think that we can still accept the article under the terms of WP:SPS. The authors are shown on the first page of that upload here, one of whom is N.K. Radevich, head of the educational-methodical department of foreign languages ​​of the Minsk Regional Institute for the Development of Education. Scholar returns this paper co-authored by Natalya Kazimirovna Radevich (she is definitely the same person since the institution affiliation is the same). Machine translation of the publication details gives Education of the Minsk Region, No 5 (52), 2014. A prima facie reliable journal, so Radevich is previously published on youth matters thus meeting WP:SPS. And besides that, we still have Piet J. Kroonenberg's book which is the source the article actually relies on, and Kroonenberg is self-evidentently an expert in scouting. SpinningSpark 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It feels like we're overthinking this one. If there is a scouting organization in Belarus that was founded in 1909 and joined the World Organization of the Scouting Movement in 2010, then I have no doubt that it's possible to build on the sources that people have identified in the course of this conversation. As far as I can tell from this discussion, nobody who has participated can actually speak or read Russian, and it is slightly painful to see people who can't read Russian second-guessing the idea that a century-old Russian organization would be covered in Russian-language sources. No one is suggesting that this article is a hoax; it's just that it was assembled between 2006 and 2010, when we didn't have strict standards on sources. I know there isn't a policy on WP:PEDANTRY, but discussions like this make me wish there was. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can someone provide me the correct link to that russian article? I think i can decode what is written there because i'm fairly good at translation. The link seems to be dead. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 07:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pesticide1110: which article are you having problems with? The article on the Russian site I was talking about is actually written in English so doesn't need translating. User:MarginalCost listed three Russian language sources, all of which work for me. If you are still having trouble, you can send me an e-mail and I will forward a copy to you. SpinningSpark 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SpinningSpark There's a russian source in the article itself. I tried opening it but it didn't open. Btw thanks for these links you provided above. Im going to check these. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 10:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pesticide1110: A copy has been archived here. SpinningSpark 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( Slightly better archive copy, this one has the header, but still no pictures archived. SpinningSpark 12:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SpinningSpark Which one is this? Is this the reference from the article or one of those that Marginal cost pointed out. P.S. the full translation of all those three articles and my judgement regarding this case is forthcoming. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 12:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the reference from the article, as you requested. SpinningSpark 12:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: So after an hour of continuous research about the topic, i have finally decided to favour keeping the article. MarginalCost should be given a guard of honor for finding those three sources. I still can't figure out how the hell did he do that.

The following paragraph explains why i think the article should be kept:

The main two concerns i had, on which i am to base my opinion, about the article were WP:N and WP:GNG. First of all, its impossible to fully read the whole articles given by the sources of MarginalCost. It seems to cover the entire history. So i read only a few important lines. Combining the knowledge i gathered from all of the three above sources, i can say that the movement had a far-reaching impact on people's lives then. And hence the historical and cultural significance can hardly be doubted. It is definitely a one-of-its-kind movement in Belarusian history so for me it passes WP:N. Regarding WP:GNG, we the english wikipedians, can not tell it with that much accuracy since we cannot understand and find most of the sources that are about the subject. But still from the four sources provided by MarginalCost, 2 sources by the article itself and one by Spark, we can cite all the content in the article. And all the citations can be considered reliable. Especially the three provided by MarginalCost is written by the lecturers of Belarusian State University and hence is reliable. Overall the movement is of a very high historical significance and hence it is must to have an article on wikipedia about it. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 13:30, 19 June 2020 (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.