Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scout Laws by country

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scout Laws by country (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)

This list is almost entirely quotations. It seems like excessive detail for a general-interest encyclopedia, as the laws are very similar across countries. If we really want to keep these quotes, I think they should be moved to the articles on the specific organizations where they are more proportional to non-quoted material and more relevant to readers. -- Beland (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An encyclopedia is not meant to be a compilation of quatations. There is no encyclopedic value to this article. Any analysis can be done on the articles on scouting in these countries. I was a scout for 10 years, and later served for a time as a Merit badge counselor and once as a chaperon during a Cub scout day camp, but I know an excessive article when I see one, and this is it. Maybe some of this would go in Wikiquotes or some other source compilation website, that is not what Wikipedia is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is basically a compilation of the founding principles of each scout group in each country. The list is necessarily quotations as it details each organization's founding principle. While I agree an encyclopedia should not be a compilation of quotations, that is not the purpose of the list; the purpose is to show basic Scout Laws by country, which happens to be illustrated through quotations. The WP:LISTPURP is informational and comparative to look at differences of national organizations. While some may think the article is encyclopedic, I can't think of any specific policy based reason to delete. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am puzzled by the idea that the Scout Laws are the founding principles of each scout group in each country. In many countries the laws have been changed over time. However, the Scout Law (and the Scout Promise) are an important part of each Scout organisation. I think is useful to have a list so readers can compare how different countries define the Scouts Laws. --Bduke (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two issues.

1. Fails WP:LISTN. To argue notability we would need independent reliable sources that discuss the group or set of scout laws by country. But each of the current sources (reliability and independence aside!) only discuss a single country.
2. Violates WP:NOTQUOTE. This is a collection of quotes. I don't know if there is a good way to discuss scout law as an article, but simply quoting promises/oaths/laws is unencyclopedic.

These two problems suggest deletion is appropriate. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:LISTN, it is discussed as a group here (https://www.troop260.org/index.php/2018/07/07/around-the-world-the-scout-law/ ) and to a lesser extant here (https://scoutsmarts.com/scouting-around-the-world/ ) Zoozaz1 (talk)

• KEEP A notable global organization, this showing what variations on the oaths each nation has. Dream Focus 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Longstanding article about a notable global organization. It is not simply a collection of quotes. --evrik ^(talk) 18:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very useful list article with a large amount of excellent content and work in it. Much more so than most list articles. On the one comment wp:GNG is pretty clear that there is no consensus to apply requirement of coverage of the specific criteria when it is a compound criteria as this, but IMO given the topic it's almost inevitable that sourcing exists to even fulfill that non-applicable criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 30 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.