Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Whitton Scout Group


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd Whitton Scout Group

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. PROD and PROD2 removed without comment by author. Unreferenced and unverifiable. Likely COI. Even a large scout group (and this one is not huge) is probably not automatically notable. The "world record" might make them notable but I can't verify it and I can't even determine what a "King Scout" (as opposed to a "King's Scout") is in a UK context. Google has little on them, certainly not enough to reference an article from reliable sources. In fact they get less hits that the 1st or 3rd Whitton Scout Groups, neither of which have articles. Nothing in Google News, so it looks like that "world record" didn't even make the local press. DanielRigal (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this article should be removed because the subject of the article does not seem to meet Notability (organizations and companies).--Karljoos (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable unless someone can convince me that this record for most King or Queen Scouts in a Scout group actually is in the Guinness Book of Records (and possible still delete even then). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources to establish notability, so it fails WP:N. Were sources to be found I would argue it still fails, as Guinness World Records of itself does not constitute a signficant award or significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources, and neither the "Kings and Queens" point or its successive census rankings are inherently notable. - DustFormsWords (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete --we regaularly delete churches with a much larger membership. Sometimes, local clubs etc can usefully be merged into an article on a place, but I dount that is appropriate here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.