329:: 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.
553:- 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.
379:
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.
604:- 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. -
48:. 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.
461:
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
560:
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
Knowledge's guidelines, it
556:
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
Knowledge articles, we can start by deleting all the articles covering small geographic regions, as they clearly fall afoul of the same
279:
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
378:
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
387:
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
237:
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
182:
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.
351:. You will note that it links to the applicable Knowledge guidelines and adds some discussion on related issues. We don't have special notability guidelines for Scouting since the project operates within the greater Knowledge; we are not a walled garden. --β
312:: "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."
164:
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.
510:- 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!!!!
388:
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.
233:: 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
419:
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
623:
649:
116:
234:
221:
128:
83:
78:
87:
70:
260:
256:
673:
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.--
561:
clearly has an interesting story to be told and is quite worthy of a
Knowledge page, as the recent ongoing edits continues to demonstrate.
404:
17:
691:
664:
638:
613:
594:
570:
543:
519:
502:
471:
437:
365:
338:
321:
298:
272:
247:
216:
198:
174:
151:
52:
74:
706:
170:
36:
580:- To my knowledge this is the first time the article has been at AfD. There was a merge that failed in 2007. --β
705:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
124:
66:
58:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
566:
134:
539:
467:
392:
166:
660:
634:
609:
589:
515:
432:
400:
360:
334:
293:
146:
348:
674:
562:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
137:
is a property managed and used by
Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 and fails the same standards. β
535:
463:
268:
243:
212:
191:
656:
630:
605:
584:
511:
484:
427:
396:
355:
330:
317:
288:
141:
49:
131:. It does not show why this unit is unique out of 52,000 Boy Scout troops in the U.S.
531:
527:
480:
454:
309:
423:
article. Since you are directly addressing me, please take it to my talk page. --β
104:
458:
263:
as it seems many of the claims of non-notability stem from these misconceptions.
264:
239:
208:
184:
313:
261:
Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known
281:
699:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
457:
the troop does not demonstrate sufficient notability via the
127:
article fails to establish notability for a local unit of a
111:
100:
96:
92:
624:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
235:Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies)
650:list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
709:). No further edits should be made to this page.
453:There is no assertion of notability. As per
8:
648:: This debate has been included in the
622:: This debate has been included in the
526:I would just remind all users to please
7:
255:: I would suggest editors review:
24:
349:WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
257:Obscure content isn't harmful
692:09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
665:06:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
639:06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
614:13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
595:22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
571:18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
544:03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
520:17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
503:16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
472:15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
438:12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
366:01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
347:The project guideline is at
339:00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
322:23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
299:20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
273:19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
248:19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
217:19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
206:Separating articles AfD's...
199:22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
175:22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
152:18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
53:03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
129:non-commercial organization
726:
125:Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1
67:Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1
59:Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1
702:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
222:Hawk Mountain Camp AfD
160:and salt, if possible
530:and do not resort to
167:Chris (γ―γͺγΉ β’ γγ£γγ)
135:Hawk Mountain Camp
44:The result was
667:
653:
641:
627:
528:assume good faith
483:. Obvious case.
409:
395:comment added by
717:
704:
689:
686:
683:
680:
677:
654:
644:
628:
618:
587:
532:personal attacks
500:
497:
494:
491:
430:
408:
389:
358:
291:
196:
189:
144:
114:
108:
90:
34:
725:
724:
720:
719:
718:
716:
715:
714:
713:
707:deletion review
700:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
585:
498:
495:
492:
489:
428:
390:
356:
289:
280:articles is at
192:
185:
142:
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
723:
721:
712:
711:
695:
694:
668:
642:
616:
598:
597:
586:Gadget850Β (Ed)
574:
573:
559:
558:
555:
554:
547:
546:
523:
522:
505:
485:Andrew Lenahan
474:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
429:Gadget850Β (Ed)
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
371:
370:
369:
368:
357:Gadget850Β (Ed)
342:
341:
324:
302:
301:
290:Gadget850Β (Ed)
276:
275:
250:
227:
226:
225:
224:
202:
201:
177:
143:Gadget850Β (Ed)
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
722:
710:
708:
703:
697:
696:
693:
690:
672:
669:
666:
662:
658:
651:
647:
643:
640:
636:
632:
625:
621:
617:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
599:
596:
593:
591:
590:
588:
579:
576:
575:
572:
568:
564:
552:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
504:
501:
486:
482:
478:
475:
473:
469:
465:
462:notability.
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
439:
436:
434:
433:
431:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
367:
364:
362:
361:
359:
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
303:
300:
297:
295:
294:
292:
283:
278:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
249:
245:
241:
236:
232:
229:
228:
223:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
207:
204:
203:
200:
197:
195:
190:
188:
181:
178:
176:
172:
168:
163:
159:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
148:
147:
145:
136:
132:
130:
126:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
701:
698:
670:
645:
619:
601:
582:
581:
577:
563:Vincent Pace
550:
507:
488:
476:
450:
425:
424:
420:
391:βΒ Preceding
386:
353:
352:
326:
305:
286:
285:
252:
230:
205:
194:(Discussion)
193:
186:
179:
161:
157:
139:
138:
133:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
536:Theseeker4
464:Theseeker4
657:Raven1977
631:Raven1977
606:SummerPhD
512:Jmpenzone
397:Jmpenzone
331:Jmpenzone
282:ScoutWiki
50:Lankiveil
405:contribs
393:unsigned
117:View log
578:comment
253:Comment
238:chance.
84:protect
79:history
602:Delete
508:Delete
481:WP:ORG
477:Delete
455:WP:ORG
451:Delete
310:WP:ORG
306:Delete
180:Delete
158:delete
112:delete
88:delete
46:delete
557:rule.
284:. --β
265:Jheiv
240:Jheiv
209:Jheiv
187:Bduke
162:merge
115:) β (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
671:Keep
661:talk
646:Note
635:talk
620:Note
610:talk
567:talk
551:Keep
540:talk
516:talk
479:per
468:talk
459:WP:N
421:this
401:talk
335:talk
327:Keep
318:talk
314:Deor
308:per
269:talk
259:and
244:talk
231:Keep
213:talk
171:talk
123:The
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
688:ian
685:ymp
655:--
652:.
629:--
626:.
534:.
496:bli
682:Ol
679:08
676:20
663:)
637:)
612:)
592:-
583:β
569:)
542:)
518:)
499:nd
493:ar
490:St
487:-
470:)
435:-
426:β
407:)
403:β’
363:-
354:β
337:)
320:)
296:-
287:β
271:)
246:)
215:)
183:--
173:)
149:-
140:β
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
659:(
633:(
608:(
565:(
538:(
514:(
466:(
399:(
333:(
316:(
267:(
242:(
211:(
169:(
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.