Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahraoui Scout Association

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. Anas ^talk? 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahraoui Scout Association

Notability: no primary or secundary sources. Juiced lemon 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
The authors of the article don't give any source proving existence of Sahraoui Scout Association. They only adduced some scouts activities in Western Sahara in connection with a scout association of Morocco, member of Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain. The article insinuates that the alleged Sahraoui Scout Association could become a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, regardless of the Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain. That is politically significant, since Western Sahara is currently administred by Morocco, except for a near uninhabited zone.
This article contain mainly stereotypical informations. Other informations help only to express a non neutral POV. That's why this article will have to be deleted. --Juiced lemon 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not verifiable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the new information.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep The proposer of this deletion is a POV editor who changes "Western Sahara" wherever he finds it, to "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", and I called him on it, so this is a retaliatory deletion nom. I am presently trying to source and verify the info in the article, which had not been questioned until this author, who says Scouts do not exist on the land area of Western Sahara but does not give his own sources.

This user is trying to inject POV into the article based on his politics. There is no POV in the article as it is presently written. All the present article states is that, in the land area of Western Sahara, there are now Scouts developing. This area has been disputed between Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic for three decades. Scouting has nothing to do with the political situation, it has to do with children, but he keeps insisting Scouts don't exist there, without citing how he supposedly "knows" that.

Here's the problem. I have no _web_ sources. My sources are correspondence with a Scout brother I've known since 1989, who lives in the Canary Islands and is working to aid the Saharan Scouts. He is absolutely reliable source, but nothing I can use as "references". I know the Wikipedia community will not like the lack of sources, and the fact that an absence of internationally recognized Scouting is not something that a lot can be written about, but the Wikipedia community will not like the POV pushing either.

There are several other editors who have also worked diligently to source the article, and make corrections where need be. I ask the community not to delete it, we're working on it, just give us time to get the sourcing right. Chris 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop your personal attacks: they are still unsourced, therefore unjustified. Even if this association exists, it has not sufficient notability and don't deserve an Wikipedia article. There are not Wikipedia articles for scout associations in Morocco, but only an article for their federation: Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain. --Juiced lemon 13:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This just needs more sources, not deletion. Regarding the variety of scouting organizations in Morocco, those articles could be created, they just haven't been yet; that's irrelevant to the creation or deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs)
Keep, User:Kintetsubuffalo's comments have me believing that this is a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I don't see clear POV-pushing or bad faith, so please don't accuse anyone of that, Chris. However, I do see an overly rash deletion request. Come on, a one- or two-day ultimatum to improve the article? Maybe if it was nonsense, but there do exist reliable sources in Spanish about "Saharui" Scouts (or however they spelled it), though possibly not on a controversial, national "Western Sahara" level like the article says now. The best solution might very well end up being a redirect or merge, so let's cool it down and find some time to sort this out. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the The Sahraoui Astronauts or Sahraoui Friends of Mars? Would they be also protected to stay in here?
I would say speedy deletion is required if no source nor facts are provided.
If such a thing exists then possibly in Tindouf, driven by Polisario. Not in Western Sahara.
The pro-Polisario people are abusing of the encyclopaedia to build a virtual sahraoui world
Wikipedia is becoming like a bin for every cheap propaganda.
Lets keep Wikipedia free from propaganda and ideolgical militantism!

Thanks - wikima 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But if you looked at the situation more closely, you'd realize there are references to "Sahraoui" Scouts. There certainly aren't any around to Sahraoui astronauts. And the people involved certainly aren't involved with the Polisario Front. Please assume good faith, and don't use straw man arguments to potentially mislead other editors. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use straw man arguments is, in itself a straw man arguments.
I am talking based on my experience in Wikipedia and with users such as koavf.
This is not about good faith, but about people who try to build a virtual world for a republic that does exist only on paper.
It is hard to expect objectivity from users who want to fight for the "truth" and the sahrawi people.
We are dealing not with encyclopaedians but with militants for a cause.
If this article is accpeted I will create the ones about the astronauts and other fictive sahraouis stuff, and will also object any deletion.
either we keep Wikipedia a POV free encylopaedia or we leave it for militants of Polisario to abuse it a great platform for their propaganda activity.

Thanks - wikima 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - So you completely miss the point, blindly push your point of view, and then threaten to violate other Wikipedia policies in retaliation? That's rich. I encourage other editors to just ignore Wikima's comments; I plan on doing the same. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have arguments to dicuss then you're welcome. If you are just becoming agressive, then I don't think this is a way to deal with community.
I am merely using your logic. Read well and understand if you want to participate. If not leave it, this is collaborative work, not your mind only.
Calling to ignore a member because he has different thoughts than yours is stange in the wiki world. Just learn to be open minded, it helps.
And if you did not understand: I have other business than to create nonsense articles. What I wanted to say / With other words: I think this article does not make sense as long as it is non sourced. Everyone can tell stories and create/add embloems and logos which are used nowhere in the world.
And I think the rule is simple and easy: Is information sourced and presented in an encyclopaedic and nPOV way, that's what wikipedia is about.
Is it not, then it should be removed.
Think this is not really difficult to understand is it?

wikima 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

comment Western Sahara is disputed territory, i.e. not presently independent. The two main claimants are the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front independence movement (and government of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or SADR), who dispute control of the territory. Since a United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement in 1991, most of the territory has been controlled by Morocco, with the remainder under the control of Polisario/SADR. As the international Scouting movement is an educational youth movement, it takes a neutral position on each side's claims, and the existence of Scouting on the land area of Western Sahara does not imply any official position in the dispute. The status of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the West Bank/Gaza, and Taiwan are all disputed as well, yet they all have active Scouts. Chris 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there is a note about the disputed status of this region.Rlevse 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed status of any region doesn't justify articles about associations which don't exist or with insufficient notability, nor wrong or unsourced informations. --Juiced lemon 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're being fallacious again. I know someone who deals with Scouts there.Rlevse 02:29, 14 July 2007 (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.