Deletion of Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas

Comment: unless the creator can offer some better reasons why this should exist.  At first I thought this would be almost a speedy delete, but went to the talk page to find out what was up.  As my last comment there said, "So if I understand you correctly you just want to compile a list of membership policies in certain areas, without any discussion or analysis? If that's it, then I don't see how this is a notable concept. An organization's membership policies belong on its website; #INDISCRIMINATE. But if you do want discussion and analysis, that's where the fork and coatrack issues come in."  The answer I got was that this article is basically intended to be "Noteworthy BSA Policies."  If that's so, then delete, because even if the author doesn't intend it this will become a natural magnet for POVFORK-type edits. Moreover, if a policy is so noteworthy that it deserves to be mentioned here, it's probably also mentioned on Boy Scouts of America membership controversies as the basis of a controversy, and can be adequately covered there in a sentence or two.  We don't need detailed disquisitions on each and every Boy Scout policy, so I see no justification for a separate article to house such content in light of the problems such an article would tend to develop
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The subject of this article, the policies themselves, are not |notable outside of the areas already covered in the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article. The policies themselves are not covered by third-party |sources and do not attract the requisite critical commentary to support an independent article. As it is currently written, the article is based solely on |primary sources, not meeting the requirements of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:RS||WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG)