Scouting in Minnesota 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Oppose as the geographic subdivision includes "much of western Wisconsin. Its name comes from the shape of the Wisconsin-Minnesota border, which is said to resemble that of the head of an Indian." Sulfur 04:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues-one, we do keep articles separate from the parent or root state if they are large and fact-filled (and by large I mean a good page or more). The Indianhead paragraph does not qualify in either sense, so here will be a good place for it to gestate into a good article, rather than a stub.
Next, _many_ Councils cross state boundaries, and we can't just make an exception because a council is in two states. Someone interested will seek the Council in both states. I will put a link at Scouting in Wisconsin to come back to this article. Chris 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support there is not enough notable history for the article to stand on its own -- Horus KolTalk 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leave it alone, give it some growth time. Merging will not solve the problem, just make the page look worse. Justinm1978 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a consensus to merge. --evrik(talk) 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There remains a lot of information that could be added to make the Many Point article more useful and which would be out of place in a braoder article such as this. --BenFranske 19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because of a lack of consensus we should keep. --evrik(talk) 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]