Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rangers of the Year


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Rangers of the Year
Incomplete List of non-notable people --jergen 09:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, Starblind,n are you a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They [A]re Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD)? Rrpbgeek 22:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Deserves its own website but not a page in an encyclopedia. - Richardcavell 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Save - This is a piece of information for the education and REFERENCE of others. An encyclopedia by definition is a compendium of facts, both clever and inane. Content such as this can not be deleted simply because others find it to be trivial. I find many topics on wikipedia to be undeserving of entry, but only on personal grounds, not on the basis of unnecessity. This article does not violate the five pillars, it is informative, and can be of use to many people wishing to discover this info. Also, I now have cited my sources. I apologize for any difficulties this may have caused. Rrpbgeek 15:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn people, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be US-centric. Better maintained on a website.  Thoroughly agree there are more trivial articles in wiki but that's not a good enough reason to keep this one.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 23:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * merge into Royal Rangers article, otherwise not at all notable. Chris 00:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly willing to merge if it comes to that, but I would ask that you consider the page based on its reference value, and not on the notability to you of these people. That would be a judgment based on personal feelings and opinions on these people, not based on the objectivity of necessity or reference capability.Rrpbgeek 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This will be my last plea. I am appealing to all the administrators, the members, and the commoners. This article has about as much reference capability as the list of Eagle Scouts among wikipedia users. If there is a general consensus to delete this part of work, I will reluctantly submit to the administrators wishes. I don't wish to cause trouble or continue to rag on the marathon-runner administrators of Wikipedia. If you feel I should move it to a different wikimedia subsite, I will gladly comply. I just would like to have a simple final answer from the Admin. If you wish to leave me a personal message on the topic, feel free to use my user talk. It is currently nearly empty. Thank You. Rrpbgeek 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that we do have an article List of Eagle Scouts, but the important difference there is that that's a list of notable/famous people who are also Eagle Scouts, it's not a list of every Eagle Scout ever. Note that almost everybody on the List of Eagle Scouts already has an article of their own, and only in a couple of cases is their notability/fame anything to do with scouting. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of Eagle Scouts is in the hundreds or even thousands, just as the number of the equivalent Royal Ranger GMA earners.However, the Ranger of the Year program cited is a competition based on talent in firecraft, ropecraft, Royal Ranger Knowledge, etc., and winners are the best in the United States among the tens of thousands of Royal Ranger members. These boys are the best of the best, the elite of their program. Rrpbgeek 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you find it a little odd to be comparing a list of honorees for "talent in firecraft and ropecraft" to a list which contains astronauts, governers, Pulitzer winners, and a president of the United States? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Visit this link. [] After that, see the requirements for Ranger of the Year at this link. [] I am a former Ranger of the Year. I have 134 Merits, 13 Medals, and many more things. I am an expert in ropecraft, firecraft, lashing, wilderness survival, compass use, orienteering, and many other skills. Visit this link [] to see the requirements for the merits. Judge for yourself the amount of work which goes into this competition. Then realize that every one of the boys who competes in ROTY has over 85 merits, and must go up against many others at their level of expertise. Now tell me straightforwardly that these people have not made a significant accomplishment, equal to or greater than the work necessary for becoming a Boy Scout Eagle Scout. I have no desire to be mean or diss Boy Scouts, I simply want you to realize the huge amount of personal effort that goes into this victory. Rrpbgeek 21:28, 4 May 2006 (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.