Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 729

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 13:54Z

[edit] Troop 729

Troop 729 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

vanity, the Scouting WikiProject does not support troop articles save for those of historcal significance, like the first troop in a country-this does not meet. Chris 08:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 26 and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 34.

• Looks like a speedy delete to me, then. --Quuxplusone 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - unremarkable group. So tagged. MER-C 09:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Speedy declined, they assert notability as "the only Jewish sponsored troop in North Texas". Sandstein 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of the tens of thousands of troops in the US, even the oldest in each state don't have articles, so that's no more notable than if they were sponsored by the Episcopalians of Pago Pago. Probably a sturdy troop, but wouldn't even merit inclusion in a larger umbrella article. Chris 12:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a scout troup that shows no claim to notability or long term fame beyond being a scout troop. -- saberwyn 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Individual scout troops are inherently non-notable. --Metropolitan90 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have to agree, a db-group is fine per Metropolitan90. Speedy Delete per A7. --Dennisthe2 00:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. They asserted notability, discussion is deeming them non-notable. If something like a controversy around their sponsorship was an issue then there might be the basis for an article around this troop. skrshawk 00:38, 25 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.