Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth McLaren


 * 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   no consensus. I was concerned about the arguments noting the now-banned user who initially created the article, and who submitted edits to it up until February 1. Indeed, reading that revision does give serious reason for concern. However, a diff between that version and the current one indicates that the article has undergone significant changes, and a read of the current version has removed most of the material which concerned me (what is left may well be appropriate and relevant, but my job here is not to make a complete audit of the article). With a significant number of people arguing to keep and making a reasonable argument by pointing to sources covering Mr. McLaren, I cannot see a consensus to delete this article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth McLaren

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not pass WP:N, entire article is just a fork off of Robert Baden-Powell's bio article and sexuality article. Policy is very clear in stating that relationships do not confer notability. No evidence exists to show that Kenneth McLaren is notable in his own right. Please see Invalid Criteria for Notability Nefariousski (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. It is really difficult to find any independent notability for this guy. There's no obituary in The Times for 1924, which is is a 'major' source for contemporary notability, nor any other specific mention. pablo hablo. 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment An impressive amount of work has been done on this article, there are other mentions of both Mc and Mac out there (independent of his friendship with Baden-Powell) too. It is difficult with some of the online mentions to definitively tie them down to this particular Kenneth McLaren, but I think he now squeaks past the notability bar.  pablo hablo. 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Any notability that he has is only in relation to his friendship with Baden Powell, he is not independently notable. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article does need some work, but those who might do that work are being distracted by people questioning references. The main work needed just keeps getting delayed. Certainly McLaren's relationship with Baden-Powell is important, but it has been noticed. His role in Scouting has also been noted. Readers will want to know more about the man who was B-P's Assistant Scoutmaster at the important Brownsea Island Scout camp and who was the first Manager of Scouting immediately after its foundation. I think there are more sources to find about that. There is also much more to say about his role in the Boer War, where he served with Plumer. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He was an assistant at Brownsea only, one of about 25 others and the managers position appears to have had little authority or any work of note, likely a unimportant position given to him by his friend, there are no details of what happened in this role or when he left or who replaced him or if the post was even continued at all, imo he was a very minor player in the early scout movement, again he is remembered only as a friend of B Powell. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Brownsea. Where do you get the 25 from? There were 6 adults present. One was Quartermaster, one was catering officer, one was cook, one was an instructor from the Coastguard station, one was Percy Everett, Pearson's literary editor who was not there all the time. McLaren was B-P's assistant and is appropriately called Assistant Scoutmaster, with B-P as Scoutmaster. All of what you say about the manager is covered by Jeal - his role, his fights with Peearson's, when he left etc. It is an important part of scouting history. You are hot on wanting sources. Do you have one that he was a very minor player? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I read that right? Are you honestly asking that he be proven "not notable"?  Last I checked the burdon of proof is on proving someone IS notable, not the other way around.  Someone isn't just assumed to be notable until proven otherwise.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not asking that. It was tongue in cheek. Off2riorob has been very keen to get sources for his rank, his school, when he joined his regiment, and so on, where there is no reason to challenge the statements. Now he claims "he was a very minor player in the early scout movement", after showing a very poor knowledge of the Brownsea Island Camp and Jeal's book. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is one of Notability. Completely remove any relationship to Baden-Powell (notability is not inherited through relationship) and then ask yourself if on his own merit, does Kenneth McLaren meet WP:N.  Can you please give me some examples of what Kenneth McLaren is notable for (that meet WP:N) outside of his relationship to a notable person?  Nefariousski (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I did. Role in scouting is not just linked to B-P otherwise we would not have an article on his wife. It is about the movement. Of course, he is not as notable, as Lady B-P, but he is noticed and that is how we define notability. There is also possibly the Boer War. However, I have other things to do. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His wife is independently notable through works of her own. Her notability doesn't hinge upon being the wife of B-P.  Her notability can be established by her list of high awards and honors alone.  If every mention of B-P was removed from her article she would still pass WP:N  Nefariousski (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A minor but interesting personage, who was a significant other to a very important historical figure. I second Bduke's view that there is more to unearth on him. Though not relevant to this debate, I would like to note that the well-meaning individuals trying to scuttle this article are the selfsame who have been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to cover up the dodgy sexuality of Baden-Powell, the founder of the boy scouts, by attempting to delete that article also. The fact that McLaren was B-P's intimate friend for thirty years could not have anything to do with your other efforts to improve Wikipedia, could it guys? Haiduc (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I'd like to note that Haiduc was just blocked indef per Arbcom ruling. The only reason I'm posting this is because the reason for his blocking indirectly pertains to the subject matter of this article that he created.  Nefariousski (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Haiduc created this article and he has been banned. While, I know this was not your intention, I just hope that your comment is not seen by some as tarring those other editors who support keeping this article with the same brush. An article does not belong to its original editor. In this case there are people who have come across Kenneth McLaren from the Scouting articles and Scouting history in general and wanted to know more about him. We happen to think this might develop into a useful and interesting article. -- Bduke (Discussion)  07:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're 100% correct, and for the record let me state that I in no way intended nor intend to say any supporters of this article have anything to do with or share the ideas of Haiduc. I meerly wanted to bring this to the attention of those involved with this discussion because the motivations for creating the article (initially) are related to what got Haiduc blocked and I felt that full disclosure was warranted to steer us away from the now deleted Baden-powell sexuality link and more towards establishing notability for McLaren in his own right and barring that opening up the possibility to merge the content of this article into the main B-P article.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with "minor" and I agree that he was significant to someone that was notable. But notability is not inherited.  Here's the test.  Let's pretend that there was no evidence at all that McLaren ever had met Baden-Powell.  For what would he be notable?  If the entire claim to notability is that he possibly had a relationship with a notable character then he clearly doesn't meet WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Comment Under that logic why not have an article for his favorite brother Augustus? He was obviously significant to BP.  How about his Grandson?  This is a prime example for why notability isn't inherited.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are pushing that kind of argument too far, as is illustrated by the fact that we do have an article on his Grandson, which is a well sourced and interesting article. It is Michael Baden-Powell. Do you want to delete that also? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about the notability of Michael Baden-Powell. While it's clear that he's an important figure in scouting he's only an important figure in scouting due to his relation to B-P.  But that's another issue to be thought about independently of the Kenneth McLaren article.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bduke. While probably notable mostly because of his relationship to Baden-Powell, this is irrelevant regarding WP:GNG (meaning that, if sources talk of him, as it seems, he is not simply presumed notable by association as the nom seems to imply). -- Cycl o pia talk  01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from his obituary the only sources available (so far) only refer to him in context of his relationship with B-P. How does that pass WP:GNG.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like you to explain your reasoning.  A good example for notability not being inherited can be seen in this AFD for Andrew Jackson Sr. Nefariousski (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Notability is not inherited" means that a subject X cannot be presumed notable only because of relationship with notable subject Y. However, if several RS appropriately discuss subject X, even if in relationship with Y, then the subject passes WP:GNG. Example: X is the wife or husband of a notable scientist. Is she notable only because of that? No, of course. But now, imagine there are three biographies of such scientist, and all these three biographies of the scientist dedicate several pages to him or her. Is he/she notable now? Yes, because we have several RS discussing the subject enough to allow us to write content. -- Cycl o pia talk  02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The example of Andrew Jackson Sr. shows exactly the opposite of that. Multiple RS mention him and his relationship / influence of his son.  Yet none of those sources evaluated him on his own merits nor was he the subject of any of the sources.  I'm not advocating we blindly follow that example but it is very very similar in nature to your example.  The only source that puts much discussion into McLaren is Jeal and only there is it discussed in context to his relation to B-P.  Outside of that we have what?  His obituary?  His military records?  Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't follow you in full. We have sources. They talk of the guy. Why is fact that they talk of him in the context of coverage of another person relevant in any way to the discussion? If we have enough RS sources to write a bio, why shouldn't we? That's the core of WP:GNG. The example you made ended with a merge, so it is unclear what it should tell us (if anything, that actually you don't want the article deleted: a merge is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion). Notice that being the subject of any of the sources is explicitly not required by GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. -- Cycl o pia talk  02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia, practically all secondary source discuss him very briefly, and always in connection with B-P or someone else, e.g Baker Russel. The "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG is not met. Most of the details in the bio are filled from various primary sources or other passing mentions. The only significant coverage is presumably the obituary in the Cavalry Journal. Pcap ping  08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no access to most of the sources indeed, but for example the one from the Anglo-Boer war website talks only about him. That said, if these details can be reported without resorting to WP:OR, I'd say we can have a WP:V verifiable article on the subject, made using several sources, therefore in my opinion it passes WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this is even better. It's a paged dedicated to biographies of those in the Boer war, and entirely unrelated to Scouting or homosexuality. Clearly notable for multiple things. Pcap ping  12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. ''' Easily passes WP:GNG. Pcap ping  06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I recommend that people obsessed with nuking contributions of banned users read the references before voting. 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - sorry, but he's not independently notable, once BP is removed from the picture. Clear delete per WP:FAILN - A l is o n  ❤ 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, that's not a guideline for inclusion or exclusion. It's a list of instructions how to proceed with something that fails WP:N. Pcap ping  07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Make it a WP:GNG fail, so. My point re notability via association still stands - A l is o n  ❤ 07:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He was covered at least three times in the London Gazette for his actions in the Boer War, got a DSO, and has a biography on site dedicate to the War, but not to to B-P or scouting. He's also covered in C. R. B. Barrett, History of the XIII Hussars, 1911; an excerpt is posted on a B-P related site, but the original publication is a historical work dedicated to the war, not to B-P and his relationships. Pcap ping  12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That site has 100 similar biographies of Boer War DSO recipients whose names began with M. The London Gazette records Mentions in Dispatches (which MacLaren was twice) and other awards.  The book chapter mentions dozens of officers by name.  These are not evidence of notability. Kanguole 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:notability does not equal fame, as that guideline explains. All those people are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Of course, nobody cares to create those all those bios here, but that's a different matter. They are certainly more interesting than the random Wikipedia village article with a blank page and an infobox with its location. Pcap ping  13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Every soldier has some sort of hometown hero mention in the local newspaper (I've got two of my own) and historical military records are becoming widely available online. That doesn't equal notability.  If you google my name you'll find a dozen hits from reliable sources and enough information to scrape together a stub article but by no means do I meet WP:N.  I wouldn't be suprised if that was the same for half the people on WP.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does mean that you meet WP:GNG, exactly, even if maybe by a small margin. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hardly think being mentioned in a list with dozens if not hundreds of others or a few blurbs about service dates or promotions meets the word or spirit of the "Significant Coverage" tenent of GNG. Not to mention that passing GNG isn't grounds for inclusion alone.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable independently of his friendship with Baden Powell. Viridae Talk 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong . (see above) Pcap ping  12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not swayed by Cyclopia's reasoning. This is a textbook case of where notability is not inherited. As this is just another content fork/coatrack article by a now-banned user, I recommend a speedy as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going in search of print documentation today. Given what I've seen in GBooks I am dubious that this fellow played that important a part in scouting history, and the rest of it is just coatracking. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete yet the latest in a series of pov forks created by a pro-pedophilia editor, since banned. This one was created when another of his distorted forks was on the verge of deletion. Basta.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was created on February 6 2006, long before the AfD was started. Who created it is not a reason for deletion and you are throwing mud at all the other editors of this article on the basis of who created it. Please withdraw this comment. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how this is a (POV) fork? Do we have other articles about this subject? -- Cycl o pia talk  13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a non-notable ex cavalry major (there have been thousands). The article was created to discuss a theoretical relationship between this figure and another. That is the sole reason the article on this non-notable was created, and it will be a constant magnet from such coatracking nonsense.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is currently in dispute. The reason for which an article has been created are completely irrelevant regarding to its appropriateness. The fact also that it can be a "magnet" is, at best, a reason for protection, not deletion. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He was covered at least three times in the London Gazette for his actions in the Boer War, got a DSO, and has a biography on site dedicate to the War, but not focused on B-P or scouting. He's also covered in C. R. B. Barrett, History of the XIII Hussars, 1911; an excerpt is posted on a B-P related site, but the original publication is a historical work dedicated to the war, not to B-P or Scouting. He is also mentioned in the autobiography of Victoria Cross recipient Percival Marling (not a Scouting related book) . Also covered, in the press of the time on polo, and historical record thereof. He was a player and later an umpire after retiring from the army in 1905: . Of course, most of the google books hits are either scouting related       or sexuality studies that brood over his relationship with B-P    , but the relationship is also mentioned in purely historical works . This speaks more the academia of today that it does of him; see the comment of User:Baccyak4H in Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th_nomination) on the matter of modern LGBT scholarship. Just because he might be famous today because of his relationship (in certain circles), that doesn't mean he isn't WP:notable for anything else; to quote from WP:N "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, ...". Pcap  ping  12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His Boer War service is little different from any number of other officers. The London Gazette briefly records Mentions in Dispatches (which MacLaren was twice) and other awards.  The biography is one of 100 similar sketches of Boer War DSO recipients whose names began with M.  The regimental history chapter mentions dozens of officers by name. Kanguole 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? Do we delete notable rock bands articles because they're all just the same -you know, playing guitars, publishing albums, they're just another entry along with thousands others in history of rock music's books, etc.? -- Cycl o pia talk  14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This suggests to me that additional articles may required, not that this one should be going through AfD. DiverScout (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the brief notices in the London Gazette, his service record, 3 sentences in the regimental history and a passing mention in Marling's book do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The polo bit isn't worth mentioning.  If his notability is to be established separately from the BP speculation, it will have to be based entirely on his role in Scouting.  Kanguole 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - being the first manager of the Boy Scouts provides enough notability for retention. Mentions in the London Gazette and issue of DSO provide additional support to notability.  Brownsea staff member and friendship with Baden-Powell provides a footnote to the same. "Other stuff exists" arguments would include many less notable military officers and individuals being listed on Wikipedia.  The fact that a few people may wish to abuse the article for their own ends is certainly no grounds for deletion at all.  The whole of Wikipedia will need to be deleted if that ever becomes an accepted argument in AfD.  DiverScout (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I remember that some vandal kept adding Obama to Red diaper baby in 2008 or so. Obviously nobody thought the whole article should be deleted just because it was targeted with that nonsense. Pcap ping  01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is clearly aimed at expressing a particular POV regarding a friend of Baden-Powell. It is entirely appropriate to mention McLaren in the BP article, but the only claim of notability concerns the relation of the subject to BP. There are many military officers who have been wounded, and many people have participated in the Scout movement. There is no other content available regarding the subject except for the implicit invitation to the reader to infer an intimate relationship with Baden-Powell. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A particular point of view? The only thing mentioned in this article is a multiple-referenced statement that they were friends.  Which POV is that?  Or do you mean an allegation that is not even mentioned in the article?  There are many officers who have done a lot less who have Wikipedia articles, but I cannot find others who were the first manager of the Scout movement or the first Secretary of the Boy Scouts Association as far as I am aware.  I therefore assume that he was the primary holder of these posts in what was to become the largest global youth movement.  Please correct me if I am wrong in this belief.  DiverScout (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DiverScout. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mostly per DiverScout.  In general, the citations discussion McLaren in the article establish general notability.  LotLE × talk  05:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bali ultimate.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DiverScout.-Phips (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pcap and DiverScout. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No notability established apart from connections to Baden-Powell. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whatever the motivations of the person who initially created it, this is now a decently-referenced article about the individual who became the first manager of the Boy Scouts movement and, as I'd forgotten when I posted my keep statement, the first secretary of the Boy Scouts Association. Please could some of the deletionists explain how these facts are non-notable? DiverScout (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Easily enough coverage about him to warrant a mention, the only question is whether there is sufficient groups for an article separate from Baden-Powell. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a coatrack article for Robert Baden-Powell. There's nothing of any real significance indicating why it should be merged, either.  The editor who created this article made it abundantly clear that it was to further an agenda {claiming he was a "significant other" to Baden-Powell with no evidence and "there is more to unearth on him" ).  He was also known to misrepresent sources.  If someone still feels McLaren is notable enough for an article, let them recreate the article from scratch. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history and at the talk page, you'll that that has already happened: the article has been rewritten, and every source checked. I'm all for deleting the gigantic syntheses Haiduc has left behind (see Pederastic couples in Japan for instance), but this was an article easy to fix, and it was already fixed. Pcap ping  16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems notable to me, even if only of minor notability. If there are WP:COATRACK issues, they can be dealt with by removing offending text.  The article appears to a well-sourced biography.  It is hardly appropriate to merge one person inot another.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it seems that a lot of people are voting to delete this article without having read it and are requesting the deletion of an article that effectively no longer exists, written by an author who has been banned, to an agenda that is no longer being served. This all seems very strange to me.  DiverScout (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The creator of this article has a history of misrepresenting sources and all his work should be deleted on suspicion - otherwise somebody has to go through all his edits. Any volunteers? Delete! Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water, as a quick look at the diff since that editor last edited, shows that the article has essentially been completely rewritten. There is nothing remaining that is in the least suspicious. I agree with the comment above from DiverScout. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People have been 'going through his edits', which is one reason why this article has been rewritten. Others are up at AfD also. You should judge this article as it is now.  pablo hablo. 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still say delete it. The article still contains tendentious edits - Haiduc made the edit telling us that BP nicknamed McLaren 'The Boy' (here: ). That little bit of info becomes important in a small article such as this and it is intended to stir suspicions about the relationship between the two men. Haiduc created this article as a propaganda opportunity and not because the subject is noteworthy. McLaren was a friend of BP and he won the DSO (not notable in itself - my great-uncle won the Military Cross) and he played some role in the growth of the scout movement (not notable because we don't know what his role was - was it secretary, manager or what? Apparently he was ill at that time and it might turn out that he played virtually no role at all). This information can be included in other articles - it will not be lost if this article is deleted. Delete. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the first thing I wanted to delete when I saw this article. But his nickname is used in many (hagiographic) Scouting texts, not at all related to LGBT studies (you can find a ton of those on a gbooks search). Even pure military history sources use it   . It's hard to make an argument it's POV when so many sources from different fields use it. Granted, the nickname of MacLaren is an important part in the "repressed homosexual" theory about B-P, which is discussed at Baden-Powell; the most recent three biographies of B-P include a discussion of that matter in connection with McLaren's nick name, only the 1964 one leaves it out, but still mentions the nickname . Pcap  ping  00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are now responding to other articles and not to this one. Your original response to this article, before you did the research, was correct and appropriate. This article was set up for propaganda purposes and we can't just paper over the cracks by changing a few things. The article tells us nothing about the heroism that won McLaren the DSO. It tells us nothing about the nature of the illness he suffered. It tells us almost nothing about his work for the Scout movement. It tells us almost nothing about his education, his family, his ancestry etc etc etc. It gives us no real context in which to understand his nickname properly. The article doesn't say enough to justify its own existence. It says enough to make us think McLaren might have been BP's bumboy. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I now see that you have made some significant changes to the article since I last looked at it, which somewhat strengthens your position about retaining it. Such late changes make it very awkward to argue anything here and it's not very helpful for a coherent debate. However, I think the article still needs a lot more info about McLaren in order to innoculate it against pederastic innuendo - a bigger picture of his life would put everything in context. I don't think there is enough info out there for that so I am staying with DELETE. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete.  Falls far short of independent notability, in particular, fails all aspects of WP:BIO. The sources have nothing more than trivial passing mentions of McLaren in context of  Baden-Powell and his position with the Scouts (that also was conferred by Baden-Powell), and nothing about any independent actions or accomplishments. And his name is included on some long lists of military-related names and dates. None of that is sufficient for an article per WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)  [changed my comment after additional research - see below --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)]
 * I agree about the military part, but am unsure about the scouting part. I think the question is whether he gets significant coverage in scholarly histories of the Scout movement.  I haven't read those, but the article doesn't claim that he does.  Kanguole 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to: Keep and continue verifying all sources added prior to the re-write. My initial searches did not show notability, but after doing some more research, I found that there is documentation of McLaren's role as one of the early icons of scouting. He was not nearly as well-known as Baden-Powell, but as one first scoutmasters and the first Secretary of the association, notable enough for an article. However, because the banned user Haiduc is known for routinely misquoting sources, any references that were initially added by him should be removed from the article until they can be verified.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jack, I don't agree with keeping this nasty little bomb. Look at my comments above about 'The Boy' and about the article's notability. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm changing my note on this yet again. I certainly agree about the disingenuous reasons that the article was started  by Haiduc, and in my initial research I didn't find McLaren notable.  Then I reversed my view on that when I found multiple scouting newsletters that mentioned him as the first Secretary in 1908, so that seemed notable.  But the various arguments on the other side are compelling, and his notability does appear to be confined to very slight mentions in passing. So for now, I'm removing both my !votes and will just leave this as a comment.  I'll post again after some more consideration, if the AfD is still open. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've now done more research and determined that my first impression was correct, McLaren does not meet notability requirements for a bio article. What led me astray in working on the Google searches is that his name is mentioned often in scouting sources, including his nickname of "the Boy", but in following the links and looking closer, I found that they all repeated the same minimal content, that he was Baden-Powell's friend, he was called "the Boy", and that he was appointed by B-P as first manager or secretary of the association.  I could find no sources that went any deeper. Nothing about his actual work with the scouts. If he were notable, someone would have noted what he did.  It appears that his name is in some early scouting papers, and then those same sentences propagated almost word-for-word through the organization as various local scouting groups put out newsletters and mentioned the early history of the Boy Scouts.  But in all thouse sources, I found nothing at all in any greater depth than the mention of his name and position.  That's not enough for an article.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * References. At the last version edited by Haidoc there were only 5 references. The first two were added by other editors just before that. The third was to Rosenthal, page 48 and that is correct. The wording pointing to that reference has been changed since then. The last two references were to Jeal and they appear to have been checked by many people, although please see the talk page for information about page numbers changing from one edition of the book to another. I think we have removed all influence of Haidoc. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any significant coverage of MacLaren's role in the Scouting movement in Jeal or similar works? There's an impressive amount about his life in the article, but it all seems to have been assembled from fragmentary mentions in a wide variety of sources.  Kanguole 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let other anwers the part about scouting in more detail, but my imprssion is that there are scattered refs throughout Jeal's the book, but there's also about the same amount of info on his role in the siege of Mafeking in this history book; he is mentioned in more history books, see above, but this one has the most because it's about a specific battle. The only text that's exclusively about him is his military record on a site dedicate to the Boer War, also discussed above. Notability is somewhat marginal, but sufficient, I think. Pcap ping  01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sufficient for what? His notability is dwarfed by the controversial issues surrounding BP's sexuality. That is why Haiduc created this article - it's territory he and others like him can dominate very easily with just a few edits. I find it interesting that the present edit (here ) contains no mention of sexuality at all. How very odd. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? The fact that you are concerned that something "might" happen has totally no bearing on whether or not Kenneth McLaren is notable.  The issue of Haiduc's motivation has absolutely no bearing on it either.  Why are so many, mostly US, editors focussing their attention on this irrelevant issue?  Even those against the article are noting that he is listed in a large number of texts.  The only question is whether McLaren has notability.  DiverScout (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sexuality is an unavoidable issue in a biography about McLaren. Why is there no mention of that issue in the present edit? Because we are voting on whether it should be kept or not. It's ridiculous. Somebody needs to edit the sexual issue back in so that we can see how it affects the article. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One reason why nothing has been added here is that those of who know the sources do not have time. After the deletion of the "Sexuality of B-P article" we are trying to find a better and shorter way of wording the section in the main article on B-P. When we agree on that we might agree on a form of words for this article. I really do think that some people are getting over excited about this. Haidoc's edits on B-P and McLaren in various places were certainly pushing a point of view but they were, I believe, far from the worst of his edits. His POV of B-P is held by quite respectable people. I do think we can and should now forget about Haidoc. Plenty of us will keep an eye on this article if it is kept. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should create and edit articles as if you won't be here tomorrow to look after them because someday you won't be. McLaren's lack of notability is a serious structural weakness when there are so many peripheral issues about BP's sexuality. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say I would be around. I said plenty of people would be around. Wikipedia would quickly go to pot if nobody was watching the articles. We should not be determining the future of of articles on peripheral issues, i.e. Haidoc and his like. I really do not understand what all the fuss about BP's sexuality is. It is a normal think to go into biographies. This guy is not massively notable in world terms but he meets our requirements and readers of the B-P will want to learn a little more about him. I think we now have a better wording in the B-P article and a small part of that can go in this artcile, but I have to run now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The current state of the article is a compilation of many details gathered from scattered mentions of the man in several sources, none of which apparently give the "significant coverage" required by GNG, except for coverage of Baden-Powell's relationship with him. Kanguole 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are some more examples of the problems with this article - why do the following statements of completely non-notable facts have so many footnotes? (Usually, that happens when someone is trying to prove something, in this case, Haiduc ).
 * "McLaren was brought in to help with the growing Scout movement in 1907, serving on the staff at the Brownsea Island Scout camp.[12][3][15][16]"
 * OK, he served on the staff - that needs four footnotes?
 * "McLaren first met Baden-Powell (also a 13th Hussars officer) in 1881. Although McLaren was 20 at the time, Baden-Powell nicknamed him 'the Boy', on account of his appearance.[6][5][10][11][12]"
 * So, B-P called him "the Boy" - that needs five foonotes?
 * "The two became fast friends, their relationship being one of the most important friendships in Baden-Powell's life.[12][3][13]"
 * Three footnotes to say he was an important friend to B-P?


 * This is the core of the the issue - it is B-P who was notable, not McLaren. Notability is not inherited.  Those comments about their relationship can go in the B-P bio article.
 * Further -- McLaren is not mentioned in either of the articles about Boy Scout and Scouting (as of the current timestamp).  Those articles have much detail about B-P and other people in the history of Scouting, but they don't include McLaren.  McLaren is listed in the article on Brownsea Island Scout camp, but only in one sentence, stating that he was B-P's friend and assistant.
 * If McLaren were notable, there would be information about him to include in those Scouting articles, but apparently, no-one has found anything to write about his contributions to scouting. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, in the first sentence, are you really saying that the people who added those references are linked to Haidoc, as I do not think he added them? If so, I suggest you retract that fast. That is exactly what I asked about higher up. It is quite unacceptable. Also the references are there because editors here kept asking for more references. Please assume good faith. Secondly, I am puzzled about one of your links in the last para. Boy Scouts is a disambiguation page. You may have confused it with Boy Scout, which was about the boy in Scouting, but has been moved to a better title. Scouting does cover some history, but like the Scout Association (the UK association), it says little about the early 2 years. There is a complex reason for this, unrelated to McLaren. B-P almost lost control of the movement he founded to his publisher, Pearson. The event has been rather down played in Scouting history. McLaren was made Manager to help B-P get control back. Even Pearson does not appear much in Scouting history, but as the publisher of "Scouting for Boys" and the Scout Magazine, his role was vast. I think new histories will begin to cover this better. However, my point is that it is not just McLaren that is not mentioned. Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I did not intend to imply any link of other editors with Haiduc, I apologize for the misunderstanding and I have struck out his name from my comment. Regarding the link to Boy Scouts, yes, that was a typo for Boy Scout, and as you noted, there is more history in the article on Scouting, but still not much.
 * Clearly, you know a lot about the history of the Scouting movement, and I respect your knowledge. When the new histories are published, we may find out that McLaren was notable, and then the article can be restarted.  For now, as you wrote, "Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned." - since those events were not reported, how can there be sources for an article? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that "Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned" in wikipedia articles. It is not that there are no sources. It is just that there are few. If they were used on wikipedia to deal with other matters like the clash between B-P and his editor, the role of McLaren would be clearer to people. Those few sources have been used for this article. The role of Manager v Secretary needs to be resolved, but I think it is clear he was both - Manager when Scouting had no formal structure under Pearson, the publisher, and then adding the formal title of Secretary when what is now the Scout Association was formally incorporated and thus formally needing a Secretary. I feel sure we will find sources for that but I, for one, am busy with other things. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - so, this article needs to be deleted because McLaren is not mentioned in enough sources, then it needs to be deleted because, once sources have been added to satify these editors, he is mentioned in too many? But then you say that he's not mentioned in enough.  Seriously?  Secondly, how do failings in other articles relate to whether this one should be retained?  Then the "Haiduc banner" is waved about again...  As there has been no noticeable fresh argument for deletion for a long while, and the article has been rewritten and more than fully referenced to demonstrate the notability of the topic, is it about time to close this discussion? DiverScout (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are being used to support just a few, basic facts and it doesn't matter how you multiply them - the article still lacks a coherent body of information and that's a measure of McLaren's low notability. Look at the positive side - You can create a new article about formative figures in the early history of the scouting movement, including all this information about McLaren. That topic would have more notability and more information than this one. Seeing what tigers you guys are, I don't doubt you'll do something like that if this article is deleted. Anyhow good luck and may the best argument win! Amphitryoniades (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fragmentary nature of the evidence is illustrated by this passage in the article: "According to biographer Tim Jeal, Baden-Powell convinced McLaren to be the Boy Scouts' first manager, but McLaren resigned that position in March 1908.[3] According to other accounts, when the Scout Association was formed in 1908, Major MacLaren became its first Secretary.[17][18]" His role in early Scouting is his main claim to independent notability, but is this all that is available?  Kanguole 09:44, 10 February 2010 (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.