Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rangers (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rangers[edit]

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

Page is 100% promotional. A single user has been adding loads of promotional material that has destroyed any encyclopedic sense the article may have once had. Beyond that, I don't see any for of notability here. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~, copyvio. Google almost any sentence in the article and it will be a word-for-word copy of a sentence somewhere on one of the pages of royalrangers.com. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I think it is about half copyvio. The history section is very similar, but somewhat longer than http://royalrangers.com/aboutus/history/. The core program elements section is copied point-by-point rather than summarized. The special programs section just takes a few sentences from http://royalrangers.com/programs/special/, The junior subsections of the training section are sentences taken from http://royalrangers.com/training/junior/ Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, roll back to [1] and cleanup, as youth section of World Assemblies of God Fellowship; 12-year-old stable article with few issues before this. Needs a weeding, definitely, and better sourcing, but I have been aware of them for 35 years. Newbie editor does not seem willfully disruptive, and goes so far to ask, "Is it okay?" in edit summaries. Suggest someone mentor new editor. I do not have the time as starting new job.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps-the 3 European versions seem much more modest. Once weeded, I suggest this article get one of those locks to experienced-editors only, and have suggestions/requests for edits made on the talk page.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my preferred version to something akin to [2]-it's modest, to the point and not redlink-heavy--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly significant, and non-speedy delete seems to me unnecessary. Starting from the current state, I !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a rollback. The organization has been around for a while and has a widespread presence. However the article needs to be watched. --Erp (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as a youth programme of a major denomination and operating in 90 countries, this is certainly notable. If the denomination has not complained of copyvio, I do not think we need be too concerned about that issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is certainly notable, but the copyvio must be removed whether the denomination cares or not. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (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.