Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Larney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppet votes by new or anonymous users were ignored. --Allen3 talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Larney

Non-notable person. text of entry suggests that this page was put up as a kind of joke Bwithh 19:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't delete it. You have no reason. All information on here is not nonsense and this person has been proven to be significant. I also cited my sources. These were your complaints. I have fixed them. Leave the article be! It is not a joke. This person is very important in his realm. He has many followers. TheBill 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This vote is the 10th edit by TheBill --Allen3 talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, attack? Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article itself is poorly written and concerns a non-notable officer of the BSA. There are a mere 21 Google hits from 'John Larney' + "boy scouts". Yes, he is an officer of the 'Old Colony Council' but that does not merit an encyclopaedic inclusion. Eddie.willers 20:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--Carabinieri 20:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "THIS MAN HAS A SIGNIFICANCE! John Larney is a significant person because he commands such a large power base throughout New England and the country. Those who cross him regret it and those who win his favor become very comfortable in life." At the risk of never becoming very comfortable in life, I say delete. -- Captain Disdain 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: As politely requested by JesusSaves, I have reread the article and admit that it is now in far, far better shape than before. That's good. However, I still don't see why John Larney is notable -- frankly, I don't think that scout leaders, even well-established and popular ones, are significant enough to merit articles on encyclopedias without some other accomplishments or, as the case might be, notoriety. I am not convinced by the two references we've been given, for reasons stated very well by Bunchofgrapes below -- I would like to add to that that I'm quite willing to believe that Mr. Larney served aboard the USS Brush during the early sixties, I just don't think that's particularly significant -- if he had he been the commander of the vessel, for example, that might be another thing. That's really my biggest problem here -- the lack of significance. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but I just don't see why he merits an entry in an encyclopedia. There are lots and lots of scout leaders out there, and the vast majority of them are not notable enough for inclusion. That's not a criticism on them, it's just that of the well over six billion people living on this planet, a very small minority make enough waves in one way or another to merit an article about themselves. Is this guy a really major mover and shaker in the scouts? If he is, providing some solid references regarding his position and authority shouldn't be that hard. I have yet to see any. My vote to delete stands. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a joke. This person is very important. He is not only an officer in the Old Colony Council, is has been an advisor on the Regional and National levels. TheBill 21:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This is the second vote by TheBill
  • Keep. I can attest that this is a very serious link and that all information (while sometimes misspelled) is accurate and pertinant. This man is very important to politics not only in the local Boy Scouts in Massachusetts but on the National scene as well. Kich164 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. see above He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 22:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. JesusSaves 22:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The three Keep votes directly above appear to have been made by sockpuppets (only one edit in their history i.e. their votes on this page.) Bwithh 22:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • They are all new users but that doesn't mean that they don't count. They know the importance of this topic and want to see it included in this encyclopedia. They are all long-time users of Wikipedia while not officially registered. TheBill 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because being a leader of a local unit of the Boy Scouts is not a sufficient basis for notability. --Metropolitan90 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you not read? What part of the word "National" denotes a worthless local peon? On a separate note, I am fairly new to this whole dealie (in case you can't tell). Is this just a majority rules vote or is there some arbitrator or somting? TheBill 23:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I just looked up the term "sockpuppet" and I am deeply offended. I am a scout (as if you couldn't tell by the article) Our first Law is Trustworthiness. Each of these users are individuals who know the topic. The reason for thier not having many edits under thier belts is that in this area of the US it is not common to be an official Wikipedia "user". While everyone I know uses Wiki all the time, before this article I knew no one with a username. TheBill 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

oh sorry, in that case, I mean your trusty Meatpuppets not Sockpuppets. Bwithh 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity/mild attack page for - I'm guessing - somebody's Boy Scout troop leader, with some bad-faith-looking efforts to confuse the issue in this Afd page, and by adding statements like "THIS MAN HAS A SIGNIFICANCE!", and references to apparently-nonexistent books to the article. In short, not to be too harsh, go play somewhere else please, we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added more to express his significance such as his reception of major awards and his military service. The line in question, "THIS MAN HAS A SIGNIFICANCE!", was to combat the speedy delete thing. I gaurantee this is not vanity nor am I attacking anything with this page. Just because you have not read a book doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also not to be harsh, souldn't you have something better to do than wait around looking for articles to delete because you have no previous knowledge of the subject matter? TheBill 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move all content to WP:BJAODN. Andrew Levine 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • John Larney is not a bad joke. This kangaroo court is a bad joke Kich164 02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no encyclopedic content or evidence of notability. Sockpuppets don't fool anyone. CDC
  • I'd just like to make it clear that this is not in any way a vanity article, and I'd like to cite from Wikipedia's Vanity Guidlines:

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."

So, the sole fact that the search string "John Larney + boy scouts" only procures 21 hits on Google does not consitute a valid reason for the deletion of this article.12.76.164.157 03:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • If so all-powerfully influential in the BSA, you'd think he'd get more than 21 Google hits, wouldn't you? In any case, delete as vanity. Boys, there must be an easier way to earn a Merit Badge. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we have already determined that vanity is not a reason for deletion. If you think we are trying to "earn a merit badge" we are all over 18 and therefore considered adult leaders. We do not qualify to earn badges. I suggest that you reread the "Civility" section on your talk page, Calton. You obviously haven't got the point even though many have brought it up. 207.159.182.47 02:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I suggest Carlton read over the "Wikipedia: Vanity" article again, since he clearly doesn't understand its contents at this point in time. Vanity is an invalid reason for the deletion of this article, and I find the deprecation of theBill and myself by Carlton to be completely unacceptable.12.76.164.157 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Not vanity, but non-notable, bad faith, foolishness. Wikipedia is not a toy. GTBacchus 04:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The article has been cleaned up quite a bit now, and the bad faith nonsense is gone; that helps significantly. I'm tempted to change my vote, citing Wikipedia is not paper, but I think there should be something more in the way of verifiability. (Please click on that link if you haven't already.) Do we have any sources of anyone outside of OA talking about John Larney, or even an obtainable OA publication with information on him and his significance? -GTBacchus 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a lot of heat over someone who according to one of the phots originally posted "Needs a hug"! ...en passant! 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn subject; attack-type content; contains little assertion of notabilty, mostly concerned with minor bits of internal scouting politics. MCB 07:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone using sock puppets should be deemed automatically non-notable. Has already been userfied to TheBill but apparently that is not good enough. -- RHaworth 08:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. All the other arguments are getting us nowhere. Logophile 08:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. I lived in MA for years and certainly never heard of this chap. There are lots of national and, for that matter, international officials of large organizations who are not notable. --Clay Collier 08:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regardless of if the individual is notable in the American Scouting community or not, the way the article has been written suggests that the authors are trying to assert greater notability than this person may possess.
I am an Australian Rover Scout, and although I believe that certain members of the world scouting communities hold a level of notablilty within the organisation and their home communities, I also believe that articles on Wikipedia for these people are unnecessary, barring Baden-Powell and possibly some senior members of the World Scouting Organisation.
TheBill, you claim that one of the Scout Laws is trustworthiness. Trustworthiness must first be displayed by the one who wishes to be trusted, and both in the context of this debate and with the methods available to him, Bwithh, along with many other Wikipedians, would be unable to determine the difference between sockpuppets and concerned friends of yours.
If a source that is in wider circulation than the one already provided can be made known and verified by other users, and a notability in correspondance with the views I mentioned above can be proven, I personally would be willing to let this article remain. However, if this information can not be provided by the time of closure for this AFD entry (seven days, I believe), I will have no problems if this article is removed. Saberwyn 09:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, hoax, puppetfest. Xoloz 13:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep first off, i would like to make it completely clear that I am unfamiliar with the puppet lingo happening and am in no such form or fashion a puppet of any kind. and on the note of blaming TheBill for using these so called puppets, can you prove that the former comments were made by puppets? probably not, so if you can't prove it stop pointing the finger at others who are innocent until proven guilty. Now, to the point. Just because you have never heard of a certain person does not mean that they are not notable within their field. For example, my grandfather was the founder and president of one of the most succesful trade show companies in the U.S. and if you asked anyone in the field about him they would most likely know who he is. However, if you were to google his name there are very few hits, maybe a family tree and a bridge club. But this does not make him non-notable whatsoever. October 17, Meteu from Team Red Fox {this vote made by User:134.88.161.182}
  • You all need to make pages describing your language here. Some people don't live on websites like thins. I have no idea what phrases like "sockpuppet", "meatpuppet", and "userfied" are but I assure you no one is trying to "attack" "your" encyclopedia. 207.159.182.47 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see this wiki help link here (which I previously linked to above) for an explanation of the puppetry terms Bwithh 15:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I'm shocked that Scouts would stoop to this level. --JJay 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What level? Writing articles? I can't believe that people don't have more to do with thier lives than try to push around new wiki users. 207.159.182.47 16:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking through your rules it seems that the generally accepted mark for inclusion in Wikipedia is about 5000 fans/followers. John Larney has this number. In southeastern Massachusetts alone he has over 1000. Add that to those in the rest of the state and country and you would surpass the 5000 mark. For this reason and the others we have listed above I say Keep. {unsigned vote by User:207.159.182.47}
  • Comment - Someone (User:207.159.182.47) said above: "You all need to make pages describing your language here." If there's a group of people who've made more pages describing their language than Wikipedians, I'd like to see them! GTBacchus 17:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are hundreds of them! They are called dictionaries. Almost every language has one. "Wikipedian" does not. 207.159.182.47 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a glossary of wikipedia terms available here, but I think its true that it is not obviously accessible to new users, and that might need improvement. Bwithh 19:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutral, verifiable and factual article is possible. Trollderella 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Compromise. It seems someone has decided to clean up the John Larney page. I appreciate the help. Now that it is closer to Wikipedia standards I propose a compromise. We keep the article similar to as it is now, that is cleaned up as apposed to how it was, and you stop trying to delete it. I think this is fair as there are hundreds of pages for Indie Bands and things that no one has heard of or cares about (this from a self-professed nerd who is interested in everything). Deal? User:TheBill 21:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Have a look at WP:MUSIC for the criteria a band should meet to have a Wikipedia page. We delete probably hundreds of band "vanity" pages a month. No agreement has been reached on what the notability criteria are for modern-day biographies, so those are often decided on a more case-by-case basis. Now, personally, I don't think Mr. Larney is notable enough to merit a page in our encyclopedia. That's not an insult - I am not notable enough either, and neither is anybody I know. Others may disagree about notability here (there are some who think notability isn't a criteria at all), and Wikipedia:Verifiability can be a useful tool in deciding cases like this as well. Are there any independent sources we can find, on the web or in a public library, to verify the claims made in a page? It's not enough that facts are true, they must be verifiable. See also Wikipedia:No Original Research - personal knowledge is never an acceptable source for Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the current Wikipedia Boy Scouts of America Category Page, I think the benchmark question of inclusion should be that is John Larney as significant as H. Roe Bartle, Ray O. Wyland, or Jon_Fulkerson. Or as notable as "Radioactive Boy Scout", David Hahn. Being a Order of the Arrow award winner isn't enough. Bwithh 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Meteu from Team Red Fox" brings up a good point. While vanity has already been disimissed as a nonissue, I think that Mr. Larney is noteable enough to justify such a biographical article. Its true that the article needs to be cleaned up, and is still a stub at this point, but I see no good reason to delete it. Bwithh, I agree with your proposition, and I think that as the article expands, it will become clear that his inclusion is justified.Bcaff 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This vote represents the fifth and sixth edits by Bcaff --Allen3 talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that being an Order of the Arrow award winner isn't enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. If that were so I would have a page along with over 100,000 other people. He is a DSA recipient wich is a very rare occurance. This is the highest award given by the Order. Imagine the prestigious Eagle Scout. It is completely worthless compared to the DSA. It is like the Medal of Honor for the OA. As this article expands it will become apparent that he is very noteworthy. TheBill 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment according to this official scout page, there have been approximately 500 DSA awards since the DSA was established in 1940.

In 2004, a total of 41 DSA awards were won by different scouts. Bwithh 22:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Yes there have been 500 DSAs awarded over the last 65 years. During the Second World War which started in 1941 (for the US)there were 485 MOH recipients. That was in 4 years, much less than 65. Yet many MOH recipients have pages. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to degrade the MOH or say that a BSA award is just as good. I am trying to say 500 recipients in 65 years is rare. 207.159.182.47 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, possible hoax chowells 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hoax???!!! Have you even looked at the page recently? Now that it has been cleaned up it is not even remotely mistakable as a hoax! That is just plain rediculous.


  • Keep. This article was obviously started as a joke, when you look at the history that is clear to see. But it has been cleaned up to actual information. In the Order of the Arrow, which is the honor society for the boy scouts and is in all actuality is an organization of its own, John Larney is a significant man. If this article was in its original form I would say delete it. But now it is a real article, and John Larney does have significance. To those who point out that they have never heard of John Larney, Ask you average joe boy scout who the adult head of the National Order of the Arrow is, Ask them who the President of the Boy Scouts is, most won't know those names either. You don’t have to know who someone is, for them to affect policies that have an effect on your life. As for the list of names that you think we should compare the worthiness of John Larney, I have never heard of any of them, and these are the so called people you are ok with. Also, the two examples I made the heads of the organizations, who hopefully you would even concede as being significant aren't even on your list for comparison. John Larney is active in a local lodge yes, but he is also active on a National level. As for the posters who think the 500 DSAs means they must not be all that important, because there are 500 of them, I must correct you. This is 500 people since 1940. There have been tens of thousands of people who have been in the Order of the Arrow, and even more in the Boy Scouts it self that do not have the award. It is the least likely award in the Order of the Arrow that you will recieve as a member. Finaly before I am bashed for this being my first post, I might add that I do use Wiki I just never bothered to type in it before. {unsigned vote by User:Oa164}


  • Comment if User:TheBill claims to know nothing about sock puppets, why on User_talk:Oa164 did he say "Hey. Who is this? Obviously don't reveal it here but IM me at tisq249. -TheBill Second Vice Chief Tisquantum Lodge OCC 249"? Kinda implies that he was expecting to find some people he knows signing up to vote here. Anyone fancy a meatpuppet? chowells 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course people who know TheBill are going to come on here. Gee is it so hard to believe that the same people that know John Larney and the same people who know TheBill are going to overlap in some cases. Do I know TheBill, yes I know who he is. Did he put me up to this, no. Kind of proven by his wanting to know who I was. Someone told me that this page existed and I thought cool I look at it. That someone wasn't TheBill. I then saw it was marked for deletion. I read the comments, I checked out the history of the page. And yes all on my own. If you read my earlier statement I would have dropped the article in a second do to the fact that it had a lot of stuff in it that was pure nonsense, and insulting to John Larney, but not because John Larney doesn't deserve a real mention. What is there now is a real article. A stub, yes, that can easily be expanded on.{unsigned comment by User:Oa164}
  • That is kinda creepy that you guys are watching my every move! I merely asked who he was because in the OA there is a sense of Brotherhood. In fact it is one of our three principles. Is it wrong to make new friends? Also, as you point out in the quote you took off the talk page, I am a lodge officer and have been active with the organization for years. I know a great many people. It could be someone I already knew. We have vast networks that allow arrowmen from across the country to meet but sometimes we get lost because there are thousands of miles between us. It could be a way to rekindle an old friendship. There are many arrowmen that I would not consider "friends". Get something better to do than yell "SOCK PUPPET" every time you find out I have a friend. Maybe some of you should invest in those. TheBill 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I move to have this discussion thrown out and start over as most of the delete votes are based on things that have either been fixed or discredited. The "nonsense" has been edited out. We are definately not sock puppets as some people continue to say. Vanity is not a reason to delete an article. Now it is a serious article that has the potential to be expanded upon. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: My delete vote stands unless if some verifiable sources are provided for this infomation. The only source listed is "A History of Tisquantum Lodge," no ISBN number. I can find no mention of such a book on the internet, and I doubt my local library has it: this is not a valid source for an article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems someone has added varifiable sources. Thank you to user 209. Is this better? anything else we can do? Just say it and we shall do our best to include what you want. JesusSaves 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's have a look. Source One is http://www.destroyers.org/smrdd/USS_Brush.html. This appears to be essentially a messageboard where anyone can add info that they, relatives or friends served on the USS Brush. From this, we learn Mr. Larney's email address and that he is "selling real estate". This page, apparently editable by all the world, is not a reliable source for establishing facts about Mr. Larney. Source Two is http://www.ne1b.org/aboutus.php, a page about the Norheast region of the Order of the Arrow. It does establish that Mr. Larney was awarded a DSA, and that he has staffed Section NE-1B's National Leadership Seminar (NLS). So that's a step in the right direction, I have to agree. At this point, the legitimately sourced info in the article is the following: "John Larney is a leader in the Boy Scouts of America associated with Old Colony Council and in particular Tisquantum Lodge 164 (249). He has recieved the Distinguished Service Award, the highest and rarest award given in the Order of the Arrow. John Larney has staffed numerous Order of the Arrow training sessions, including Tisquantum Lodge's annual Lodge Leadership Development (LLD), and Section NE-1B's National Leadership Seminar (NLS)." Trimmed down to that little info, you have to admit that's a pretty small page for an Encyclopedia. And there's not much hope for expanding it, that I can tell. Still, good-faith efforts are being made, and if you want to trim this article down to such a level, I'll retract my Delete opinion. (I'll probably change it to an Abstain -- I still don't think the page establishes notability, which still counts for me.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  •  ;Bunchofgrapes says "Trimmed down to that little info, you have to admit that's a pretty small page for an Encyclopedia". This has falls under Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We have room for just about everything. As for your claim that it does not have potential for expansion, how do you know that? Are you a John Larney expert? There is plenty more to say as soon as we find "acceptable" sources. Don't get me wrong, we strive for excellence. More will be added eventually. JesusSaves 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No indication that notability will be established by presenting added references for already-documented and relatively insignificant accomplishments. I encourage my fellow Boy Scouts to learn more about editing Wikipedia rather than waste time politicking here. Dystopos 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • " Trimmed down to that little info, you have to admit that's a pretty small page for an Encyclopedia. And there's not much hope for expanding it, that I can tell." I'd like to point out the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_90. This is a VERY short article about an obscure villain from an animé series. I just recently edited the article; it was less than half that length. Furthermore, there is almost no hope for the article to become any longer. Anyway, my point is that there is no outcry for the deletion of this article, yet there seems to be massive opposition to the existance of this article. How much sense does it make? 12.76.163.144 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Pharaoh 90 should probably be merged into some other article, but that simply isn't the topic of discussion here. There isn't "massive opposition" and "outcry" here, we're just a handful of people trying to rationally discuss an article, and one — I would nicely remind you — that started out as an apparent joke. But since you've brought up Pharaoh 90, let me ask you a question: How many people, worldwide, do you think have heard of Pharaoh 90? Now, how many people, worldwide, do you think have heard of John Larney? I'd guess fewer, by a factor of thousands. That tells me something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The point is not whether you can find webpages that mention John Larney and identify him as a Boy Scout leader who used to be in the Navy. We could find webpages that identify me as a math teacher who used to live in Africa. That doesn't mean there should be a Wikipedia article about me. Even though, as a math teacher, I affect hundreds of people's lives, and have power over their education, grades, etc, that doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article. None of that is the point. The point is this: AFTER other sources write about a topic, THEN Wikipedia gets to. That's the most succinct way I can think to say it. Wikipedia just isn't where the very first article written about someone should be. If some other news source does a story on John Larney and why he's interesting, then Wikipedia can cite that source, and he's in. Until then, no. The sources that have been provided (4 links so far) confirm that there is such a man, and that he is who you claim he is - great. They aren't pages about John Larney, nor are they evidence that some segment of the world considers him all that notable. I'm just as well documented online as John Larney is, (and much less so than Pharaoh 90). It's nothing against the guy, he just isn't a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Neither am I. GTBacchus 04:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm gunna go out on a limb and say they'd about break even. I have certainly never heard of this Pharoah 90 fella before now. This would be an example of someone who is well know within thier own circut (anime watchers). To tell the truth I don't believe cartoon villans have a place in this encyclopedia as they affect absolutely nothing in the real world. That being said that is my personal opinion which I shall not try to oppose here because frankly I do not have the knowledge in this field to determine whether he is a major figure within that circut. I ask that those of you who have little to no knowledge of American Boy Scouting, or the Order of the Arrow specifically, to extend the same courtesy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people of topics that they have little previous knowledge. the inclusion of this article definatly fits that descrition as none of you have this knowledge and we shall inform you if it. TheBill 04:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to Captain Distains's comment on how the vast majority of Scout Leaders are not notable enough to be included, I agree. That is why I only nominate John Larney. If I was trying to nominate leaders who were not noteable I would nominate myself and TheBill. Sorry TheBill but you are not half as noteable as Larney no matter how much you think so. JesusSaves 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- just not notable. No evidence, despite this long discussion, that he is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. ManekiNeko | Talk 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is from a link given to user JesusSaves by someone here about the guidelines for a page:

Does lack of fame make a vanity article? An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Effectiveness of vanity articles Vanity posters may post with the motive of increasing their own personal fame, or recognition of some group they are a part of. For this purpose, vanity articles are relatively ineffective. Most vanity articles receive few hits per month until nominated for deletion, and are possibly only seen by the user who nominates one. A vanity poster could theoretically increase traffic to his or her page by adding more links to it, and this is sometimes done — but it may risk earlier deletion of the page.

There is nothing in this artcile that is trying to increase the personal fame of the topic. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Not notable, but it's a close call. The obvious sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry certainly doesn't improve my opinion. -- SCZenz 23:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - discussed above. --MacRusgail 11:54, 21 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_John_Larney_2543.html"