Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 449

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 449[edit]

non notable as local sub-association of BSA, see WP:NOT#1.7 jergen 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 06:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think individual boy scout troops are notable. JIP | Talk 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are 43,984 Boy Scout troops in the USA alone. [1] --Metropolitan90 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure vanity and non-notable. Rlevse 11:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC), Scouting project coordintor.[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, for the record, under Category:Scouting stubs, this is the only article of the form "Troop N". There is clearly no precedent for these things. --Deville (Talk) 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a precedent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 34 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 26. We delete them, unless great notability at a regional or national level can be provided. -- Saberwyn 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 587. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ho, Gotta Go evrik 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual scout troops unless they are notable beyond being a scout troop. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't categorically say that no individual scout troop can ever be notable enough for a Wikipedia article - but there is nothing shown about this one to say that it should be the first. Johntex\^talk 03:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.