Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1


 * 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. The sources that exist appear to be trivial at best, trivial local coverage and primary sources do not combine to show notability. That said, there were enough dissenting views that I'll be happy to userify this article upon request, if anyone thinks it can be developed into a properly sourced article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 article fails to establish notability for a local unit of a non-commercial organization. It does not show why this unit is unique out of 52,000 Boy Scout troops in the U.S.

Hawk Mountain Camp is a property managed and used by Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 and fails the same standards. —— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * delete and salt, if possible merge any notable content into appropriate council or state article. These articles will continue to be problematic and contentious, and their existence runs counter to the dozens of nn local articles that have already been deleted over Wiki history. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. Experience has shown that very few Scout Troops or camps are notable enough for their own article. "One of the oldest", "the only troop" in community X, etc. do not cut it. The oldest in New York State might if it had continuous existence since foundation. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Separating articles AfD's... Jheiv (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hawk Mountain Camp AfD


 * Keep: I'm not sure that the development of this article is complete: it seems a generous amount of content and primary source references were added in the last 4-6 weeks.  Also, consulting Notability (organizations and companies) leads me to believe that this could, in fact, be a viable article, despite others' experience showing otherwise.  My feeling is that just because generally, troops don't meet the notability standard, does not mean that there may be a few here and there that do -- I'd like to see some given a chance.Jheiv (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would suggest editors review: Obscure content isn't harmful and  Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known as it seems many of the claims of non-notability stem from these misconceptions.Jheiv (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that essay. Yes, topics that are obscure or specialized can be notable, but they are subject to the same standards as every other article. I would not have nominated these articles if I thought that they were redeemable in establishing notability. The appropriate place for these articles is at ScoutWiki. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area." Deor (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am trying to expand this article to include not just Troop 88 (Oreland 1), but all four Scout troops that served the small community of Oreland for the past 90+ years. I am proposing to at least change the name of the article to "Oreland Boy Scouts" or something along those lines. It meets the notability standards- which are subject to broad interpretation. And I feel that to limit the debate between a few wiki-zealots and to ignore the hundreds if not thousands who have read the page since it was posted and think it is fine, would be a grave error. The in-grown hair on my ass can meet wikipedia's notability standard... C'mon here, let's work through this, instead of making it your little mission to shape wikipedia to your narrow-minded standards. Also, why don't the other two "local units" have this same tag on them? And if you don't want local units on wikipedia, why don't you strictly forbid them? And again, I'll beat the dead horse, User:VincentPace put together a sound argument the last time we were here and the article survived for over a year. Why don't you make a clear set of standards (like the one for camps- which Hawk Mountain Camp meets) for local units? You could start by only allowing units who are 90+ years old, who have continuously been chartered, who have famous alumni, have contributed to the scouting movement, etc.. This seems more CONstructive rather than DEstructive. Which in the end, is what wikipedia is all about. I hated to sound all serious, but sometimes I can have this level-headed adult-like steak in me. Jmpenzone (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The project guideline is at WP:SCOUTMOS. You will note that it links to the applicable Wikipedia guidelines and adds some discussion on related issues. We don't have special notability guidelines for Scouting since the project operates within the greater Wikipedia; we are not a walled garden. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You really didn't address the main idea of my concern/argument. If you don't want local units, just say you don't want them. The way all these "guidelines" are written anybody can reasonably argue that their troop is notable. They are, quite frankly, a joke. That is the trouble with a "top-down approach". It allows persons like yourself to "refer to this" or "read this thing that I wrote", instead of actually addressing my input and looking at this debate as a singular issue. I don't give a crap about your self-written guidelines! Address the issue at hand!!!! You are deflecting the argument and simply redirecting everything I say to a "rule" that you had a hand in writing. I know this game, I do it for a living- I'm a government regulator. And people hate it when us regulators just quote regulation and code and tell people to do it. I'm not like that and I do not ever intend on being like that. I like to sit down with the person(s) and listen to their problem and come up with a solution we can both live with. In the end, that's all anyone wants- to come to a mutual agreement that all can live with. Please, address my concerns and don't deflect the issue to some stupid rule or guideline. Hear me out.

Why don't you write about your former and/or current unit? We could compare now notable these units are. That way there you have something to compare our page with. I understand you are either doing this for one of two reasons: you really don't want local units on wikipedia (which a personal preference) or you are trying to make this article better by challenging the author and editors to make this article more notable. I honest assumption on your intention is the latter reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmpenzone (talk • contribs)


 * To answer your last question: I have been a member of two packs, nine troops, one post and one crew; none are notable outside of their community. This is getting way off the subject of this article. Since you are directly addressing me, please take it to my talk page. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no assertion of notability. As per WP:ORG the troop does not demonstrate sufficient notability via the WP:N guidelines to justify inclusion.  Unless some additional information about the NOTABILITY of the troop is provided, the article should be deleted.  It could have all the reliable sources in the world that mention the existance, but verifiability of the existance of the troop does not by itself confer notability.  Theseeker4 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG. Obvious case. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WOW!!!! The deletionists return. You guys really have it in for any content you don't like. I'll move it to Scoutwiki. (Where I know you think it belongs, right.) Hope you're happy FJB's!!!!Jmpenzone (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just remind all users to please assume good faith and do not resort to personal attacks. Theseeker4 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - As I argued the last time this was up for deletion, I believe that this article is a keeper. The notability standards for an organization state that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Oreland Troop 1 has had various media coverage since its inception in local newspapers, scouting media, and, since it began operating Hawk Mountain Camp, in the newspapers of the area of the camp. This standard does not call for national or international coverage, but coverage in "reliable, independent secondary sources", as are all those I mentioned. The newspaper group that has provided the most coverage of Oreland Troop 1 covers all of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which means that the coverage can be considered at least regional. This coverage is not trivial; it notes the various achievements of the troop over its long existence, some of which is already covered by the article. I would argue that the real issue with the article is its lack of citations to these sources.

Furthermore, I take issue with getting hung up on whether this is of importance only at a local or regional level. If that is truly a viable standard for judging Wikipedia articles, we can start by deleting all the articles covering small geographic regions, as they clearly fall afoul of the same rule.

Oreland Troop 1 has had a storied history as one of the longest-operating troops in the nation, one of only a small handful to own and run its own camp, and has an important pillar of the community in which it's found. In addition to meeting the substantive requirements of Wikipedia's guidelines, it clearly has an interesting story to be told and is quite worthy of a Wikipedia page, as the recent ongoing edits continues to demonstrate.Vincent Pace (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - To my knowledge this is the first time the article has been at AfD. There was a merge that failed in 2007. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Based on that last !vote, I was expecting to be surprised by sources. I wasn't. Yes, there are two local newspaper articles about local scouts selling Christmas trees and local scouts going to camp. This is trivial, hometown stuff. Otherwise, each and every scout troop, community theater group, high school marching band, nursing home, etc. would be notable, based on similar coverage in similar newspapers. This troop does not rise above the rest of these non-notable groups through substantial coverage in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It has coverage in newspapers, although local, there is no reason to exclude it. It is verifiable and notable at least at a local level.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 09:07, 5 December 2008 (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.