Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade

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 to delete, merge/redirect still possible. Also, the bulk of this article is a copy and paste job from their official history, which I will remove. W.marsh 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article paraphrases the parent - Boys' Brigade, without claiming any specific notability for this chapter. - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it's one of the oldest units of its type and should be kept. Rlevse 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Rlevse. As a comment, I am always suspicious of nominations that use the incorrect nomenclature. It shows that the proposed deletion has not been researched enough. This is not a "chapter", but a "company" of the Boys' Brigade, just as Scouts have "troops" or "groups". The term "chapter" would not be understood in Glasgow about anything, let alone a BB Company. It is a US term. I also do not understand the phrase "paraphrases the parent - Boys' Brigade" (NB I also corrected that link above). One is about the whole organisation. The other is about one notable company. --Bduke 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As another comment: Let's not get hung up on incorrect nomenclature. I'm willing to bet Glaswegians are not as unintelligent as you make out and although they might not use the term 'chapter' to refer to a company of the BB, they will know or be able to work out what it means if only because they have heard of Hell's Angels chapters. If a simple Londoner like me can do it, a Glaswegian can. Back to the debate: The fact that it's one of the oldest BB companies may be significant within the BB, in which case it could be mentioned in the BB article. I see nothing that merits a separate article. Emeraude 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rlevse and Bduke. --Oakshade 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Boys' Brigade - 205Ghits for "130th Glasgow Company" and only 22 seem to be unique; they go to the company's homepage or WP/mirrors. Can't see any demonstration of notability, which is further underlined by the total lack of references. And I speak as a Glaswegian, former BB member, and someone who figured out what "chapter" meant without any assistance. --DeLarge 09:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - On the use of the word chapter, and because it's not always possible to avoid being a dick. Most commonly used in the context of US college fraternities, it can also be used, in the (literal) canonical sense, to refer to meetings / groups within religious orders. Particularly apt in this example. The use of the butchers's apostrophe was an egregious typo, but I'm always happy to see poor typing being pointed out (even at the expense of weegies, I fear). To my original AfD proposition - My comment was cursory and hasty. In hindsight, the article is anything but a rewording of the Buoy's Brigade piece, although the lack of notability is still an issue.- Tiswas^(t/c) 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is a unique article and is worthy of being kept. Rlevse is correct - it discusses one of the oldest BB Companies in the world. The history of the Company and the uniqueness of the text suggests it should be kept. 87.81.62.126 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is some unique history here. 86.131.225.108 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — 86.131.225.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. I am deeply perturbed by the current balance in this debate, which is edging towards keeping this article. I do not doubt that this organisation is important to its members, but as presented in this article no evidence of notability has been provided. The Boys Brigade is an important organisation, but if we keep this article we will shortly be inundated by a wave of articles about every Scout troop, and so on. This, I believe, would be deeply unwise. My key point is this: the article, as it stands, does not show notability for this company ( it's clearly not even the first of its kind ! ). I hope that the closing administrator for this debate will feel able to find a way of holding a wider debate on this issue. WMMartin 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd have speedied this as a club with no assertion of notability, but as we're talking about it now... There's no reliable sources, no indication of any notability, the text is a homepage-type advertisement. Those wishing to keep are not arguing based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Sandstein 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Within the context of notability, as spoken about by users above, the article is as notable, if not more so, that the one millionth article on Wikipedia - Jordanhill_railway_station The article contributes enough to merit it's existence. BASociety 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — BASociety (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. The Boys' Brigade is notable for having half a million members. This chapter is not. There is no reliable secondary sources for this small an organization. The content is about talent shows, uniforms and what they like to do for fun. Drunken Pirate 02:39, 7 December 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.