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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts-in-Exteris

[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No hint whatsoever that this is a notable organization by our standards; it was probably written when existence equaled notability. The sourcing is primary, and some of the language ("who kept the Scouting spirit alive despite oppression") is totally not neutral. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable, lack secondary sources, and/or are promotional:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks significant secondary coverage. I was in scouting for 10 years, vaguely involved for a few years before while my father was a Weblows leader, and have other connections, and I have to say we need to focus scouting articles a little more. Not every possible topic or thought is worth having a seperate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 28 May 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.