Talk:Cradle of Liberty Council

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philadelphia High‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scouting Mid‑importance

	Scouting portal Cradle of Liberty Council is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"City poised to evict Boy Scouts council". Philadelphia Inquirer. July 22, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Neutrality Warning --- concerning "risk of losing $62 million"

I added in a section about the value of $62 million in potential loss versus the high cost of civil liberties, which the Boy Scouts' current rule does not uphold. Someone removed it and left in the original statement. This is amateurish. I'm willing to come to some compromise, but the article is clear slanted toward the position of the Scouts, and either it must be balanced with counter arguments or the general tone must be neutralized and become more encyclopedic. Hence the neutrality warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.253.71 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These same arguments have gone on for a long while. Why don't you become a registered user. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed the tag as there was no discussion. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly jawn (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musser Scout Reservation

Camp exists to support the council and is not notable outside the council. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For two reason: 1) To be consistent with the other camps in the council which have not been requested to be merged. For consistency then Resica Falls Scout Reservation & Treasure Island Scout Reservation should be merge. Which if they were, then it would be natural to want to split these articles to due article size and readability. 2) I think separate notability can be established for this camp via America's Oldest Boy Scout Camps and among other sources.

Is there a centrally located discussion at WP:Scouting for these collection of mergers? I think there should be, if not. These types of discussions have been had before (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive2#Redux revisited and other times, and my recollection is that they were contentious. Personally, I don't agree with the extrapolated reasoning, but will go along with any consensus. Mitico (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several discussions that are rather scattered at WT:SCOUT. Merge opposed and removed; plans to merge Resica Falls Scout Reservation and Treasure Island Scout Reservation dropped. This will leave those camps as some of the few left in Category:Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resica Falls merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is another merge proposal to merge Cradle of Liberty camps on Resica Falls Scout Reservation. I think this is a poor idea just as discussed above. I am not sure why WP:SCOUT members continue to generate merge proposals. No councils, no camps ...why not just merge everything right to Boy Scouts of America? Anyway, merging this article is a bad idea because 1) The Resica Fall article has established its own notability, to the point that it was featured on the main page 2) as stated above, if merged, then it makes sense to merge the other camps, which would then create an article long enough to require splitting the article. Mitico (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion should have been started with reasoning for the merge proposal. I will take the lead here and do so:

The article does not meet standards per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); specifically: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area."

there are no Wikipedia:reliable sources that establish notability outside of the local area.
there is no evidence that the camp has a separate existence outside of the council.
there is no evidence that the camp offers any significant services outside of the council.

Appearing as a DYK does not establish notability; I'm aware of several articles that made DYK and were later deleted. The key is that the article does not establish notability outside the local area; neither do Musser Scout Reservation and Treasure Island Scout Reservation. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the three stated issues regarding the notability of this article. Mitico (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the abscence of any further discussion, I would like to remove the merge tag from this article. The camp contains a notable waterfall along the Bushkill Creek. References have been provided that point to its notability outside of scouting and its locale. New York Time, ESPN articles, and a couple of books and magazine article are now referenced in the article. The camp also received significant media coverage (which is not currently in the article) in 2002 due to a fatal lightening strike & BSA policy regarding safety. Further discussion is welcome. -Mitico (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. No discussion, no consensus. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Council

As there are two councils involved in the dispute over the headquarters, the Cradle of Liberty Council and the Philadelphia City Council, it may be wise to make it clear what council is be referred to when discussing the dispute rather then just saying council Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC) -Philadelphia Council no longer exists. It retains its name from the old merger of the Vally Forge district, is all.Patricoo (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]