Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination)

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a content fork from Robert Baden-Powell which has two paragraphs on allegations that he was gay as well. It quotes at excessive length from the one book filled with speculation that powell was gay (written long after powell's death) and appears to be the subject of some agenda driven editing. It is a classic content fork as well as a coatrack. While there might be bits of Baden-Powell's life that could stand being broken out (Robert Baden-Powell's impact on scouting say), what we have here is the creation of a forked article to give undue weight to a fringe set of speculation. Forks like this most crucially undermine WP:NPOV by hiving off a set of controversial and unproven claims and treating them as a topic of their own. There can be no "neutral point of view" when this is done. Witness the article as it currently stands "Baden-Powell liked boys, he sometimes talked to them when they were naked after swimming, sometimes he slept apart from his wife, he admired the male form OMG he was a homo who molested underaged boys!" Encyclopedic, this is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If one scholar had made this case, it would be unsuited for an article. But now several have (at least according to the article), and it appears to be a subjec of controversy in Baden-Powell scholarship. It may well not be true, but he's no longer living, and the fact that it's being so heavily debated suggests it's worth a fork. 7triton7 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, talkpage was just working out a concerted effort to allow editors interested in verifying sources a bit of time to look through a handful of books addressing this subject. The main article is quite clear the subject is notable so after an effort to distill which sources were best and how to apply them - and allowing fresh eyes at WP:RSN to weigh in on any disputes a better article would either be produced or if a lack of sourcing was an issue a possible re-merge to the main article would be the next step. Instead nom has chosen the route of most disruption and drama which is unfortunate coupled with their generalized disparaging remarks against other editors on the talkpage. It's unhelpful and certainly unneeded. With more eyes the talkpage was turning more constructive but as long as we're here if anyone has ideas on what the best sources are for this material please feel free to comment. The article talkpage may be best but here is fine as well. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Several hundred GScholar hits and 100+ GBook hits suggests that sourcing indeed exists. -- Banjeboi 11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mendacious or just lazy and irresponsible? Yes, if you type "Robert Baden-Powell" sexuality into google scholar you get 435 "hits." But did you look at the hits? Almost none of them are about Baden-Powell's sexuality -- instead the represent the random, unconnected proximity of two phrases. For instance, first hit says: "It was to Lieutenant Robert Baden-Powell's disadvantage (however he later, characteristically, manipulated it to his benefit) that the early decades of his ... A pastoral escapism is openly celebrated in the less conventional work of the sexual theorist Edward Carpenter, and in the..." This means that the word "sexuality" is in that book, but not in relation to powell. Or take this from the second page: "Baden-Powell in its formation and rapid ... By emphasizing sport, Fine tells us about the male sex role (the more appropriate term is gender role), socialization, character development." Get the point? Baden Powell is the subject of 1,000s of articles and hundreds of books (defined as ones where he gets at least a chapter) yet how many books are solely dedicated to the topic of his sexuality? As far as i can tell, just the jeal book. You've just thrown up a smokescreen.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in achieving a collegial and cooperative environment. I'll let others decide what sources may be the best. This subject has been discussed extensively on the main article before a split for size was made. Lack of reliable sourcing does not seem to be an issue. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is apparently the 4th AfD. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added details of previous AfDs, but I do not know why it shows some more than once. It did that on the last AfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, the renaming from 2nd to second, etc serves up duplicates. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fourth AfD? Seems that a lot of people really don't agree that it is notable in its current form then. DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually that would be synthesis and OR to assume someone's, let alone several editors' motivations. It's quite clear this is uncomfortable information for some of the current editors campaigning to delete the article but luckily we don't censor to sooth discomfort. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence there are sufficient references here to build an article on - and I mean a proper article, not just a glorified stub - nor, given the scant biographical information surrounding Baden-Powell's sexuality available, are there likely to be so. Passing speculation from biographies does not a Wikipedia article make. What we currently have is simply a content fork that could just as easily be summarised in a couple of lines at the main article with a good deal more accuracy and less flannel. Whether or not this is the product of someone with an agenda, I don't know, but it really feels like it. Moreschi (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography is the ongoing process of analysis of often limited or conflicting data in order to develop an understanding of probable past events and causes. To naively dismiss that process as "speculation" or to imagine that absolute certainty exists shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what historians and biographers do. That also feels like an agenda, an unconscious one more troubling than any avowed agenda. Haiduc (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I totally agree with Moreschi, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality, it is more that enough covered in the main article already. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the main article's current content seems awfully POV with emphasis added to how a biography collaborating with one of his relatives made no mention of any homosexuality. Is that really surprising? I think not. It then goes on to state how "his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before." This has evolved from what was there: The orthodoxy of Robert Baden-Powell's sexuality has been brought into question by his principal modern biographers, who have found a great deal of evidence indicating he was attracted to youthful men and to boys. Nonetheless, Baden-Powell is thought to always have remained chaste with his scouts, and he did not tolerate Scoutmasters who indulged in sexual 'escapades' with their charges. We seem to be going to great lengths to dispute "his principal modern biographers". Just a thought to keep in mind while edit-warring starts to remove more content from this article. -- Banjeboi 13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From 2005 discussion that resulted in this article being created - Jeal's biography (one of the sources cited above) is one of the definitive works on Baden-Powell. It is very well sourced and of the highest academic standard, so most of the labels above (nonsensical, lacking legitimacy, libel, speculative, loose, inappropriate) are far from accurate. Although it is true that Jeal's conclusion on Baden-Powell's sexuality is somewhat controversial, this is probably due to general controversy around the issue of homsexuality. Jeal is not the only researcher to have reached this conclusion, nor are his conclusions unreasonable. However, given the controversy, perhaps this subsection should be removed from the Baden-Powell page onto a separate page, e.g. a page about Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell? -- Banjeboi 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The extensive quote in italics above is one wikipedia editor's opinion from 2005. His assertions are unsupported (i.e. "highest academic standard" "definitive" etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So for the record you are familiar with all the notable biographies on Robert Baden-Powell and what they have to state on the subject? If not perhaps we should listed to those who are. -- Banjeboi 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I have read most of them, and most of Baden-Powell's published writing (both Scouting and non-Scouting) and have a pretty heavy academic qualification that would be appropriate to such a study. I have my own opinion about the reasons for the inclusion of comments relating to B-P's sexuality in these texts (and my own opinions on the matter they explore) - but I'd not claim that my opinion is any more important/valid or correct than any other editor. What any Wikipedia editor thinks about a book is really of no importance. Let's not cloud the water by quoting each other! :) DiverScout (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually to produce a good article, we would hope that several editors would be quite familar with the main sources and would help compare and contrast what likely should and should not be included. To dismiss the same sources used on the main article out-of-hand is disingenuous at best. We let the sources speak for themselves and editors familiar with them are invaluable. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be an article based upon one person's book, strung out with a couple of mis-interpreted quotes from BP's own book. People nowadays may be into fitness and appreciate the male form, but does that mean they are aa repressed homosexual? By all means include that there has been debate about his exuality in the main Baden Powell article, but a seperate article simply put in place to question his sexuality? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. To quote from the main R B-P article: 'Jeal claims that Baden-Powell was a "repressed homosexual"; but also states that no documentary evidence exists to prove that he ever acted on his sexual orientation.' Some people may believe it but there is no evidence to support the allegation. Even many of the more far fetched conspiracy theories can at least find something vaguely resembling evidence. Arnie Side (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The problem is not so much here unencyclopedicity as such - sexuality of X articles can be legitimate pieces, either based on scholarly work (which "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler" can and should be), or based on major popular culture notoriety (sexuality of Jesus). But I fail to see how this gets close to satisfying either criterion. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned on the talk page, there is vast amounts of coverage of this in the news media. That makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. The article was created as a fork from the main article. It list the claims, where they came from, and counter arguments for them. Dream Focus 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You simply can't build a decent encyclopedia article off passing mentions in popular media, not without incorporating vast amounts of WP:SYNTH anyway. From looking at the talkpage I saw a singular paucity of RS being presented that actually pertain to the topic, while additional the content that was being proposed was simply a coatrack stick to beat the American Boy Scouts over the head with. I'm sorry, but much as I sympathise, Wikipedia is not the platform for that. There have been decent biographies of Baden-Powell written: the consensus seems to be that he may possibly have had some homoerotic inclinations but anything else is simply unprovable. That could be summarised in so many words in the main article without all this ridiculous palaver, which I'm starting to think has little to do with Baden-Powell and much more to do with contemporary gay rights politics. Moreschi (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't popular mentions in popular media, its detailed mention in major newspapers. It has nothing to do with gay rights, that not making any sense at all. And there is no consensus he had any homoerotic inclinations. The article list the issue, those accusing him, and counter arguments to their ridiculous claims. Dream Focus 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article essentially amounts to the following: "Dude #1 says he might have been gay but maybe not, Dude #2 says he probably wasn't, and Dude #3 couldn't be arsed to bother mentioning it one way or another." In other words, nobody knows, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, nobody ever will know. The evidence is extremely slim at best and entirely circumstantial. While the subject is deceased and thus not technically covered under BLP, it still seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to speculate on his private life, especially when the evidence we have is next to nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a gross misrepresentation of both the sources and the article history. That editors who wish to scrub non-heterosexaul content have edit-warred to remove and degrade the article doesn't mean the issues can't be resolved. If the article has to be protected so be it but we don't rewrite history nor do we claim the best or at least leading biographies on the main page to be fringe or otherwise compromised on a sub article. -- Banjeboi 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The separate article seems awkwardly disproportionate to the rest of his coverage.--Pink Bull 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some material being merged. This is a totally over-the-top and unrequired agenda-driven entry. The short passage in the main article that notes the unsubstantiated possibility that Baden-Powell may have unknowingly had some homosexual tendencies that he never acted on, wrote about or used as an inspiration for his art work does not seem to require the level of coverage it has been given. A short entry, how it relates to the arguments being made with the Boy Scouts of America and a couple of links should be enough for something that has no real bearing on the man's life or his personal notability. I realise that some non-heterosexual editors feel strongly that they want to emphasise this content, and some heterosexual editors wish to bury it totally, but undue weighting is currently being given to an exceptionally marginal matter. If the content is being drawn pretty much solely from Jeal's text, and wider commentary on how these observations actually fit in with the time that B-P lived is still being refused on grounds of OR, perhaps it should be in an article with a title relating to the text, linked from a short section on the main B-P page. DiverScout (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality is inappropriate here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am concerned not so much by whether BP was in any way homosexual, although that is of interest in trying to understand this impressive man, but more by the seeming homophobia of a number of the comments above. I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America, a body with a strong public anti-homosexual image. It would explain their concern with any suggestion that BP had gay tendencies. To those who see homosexuality in a less negative light, that suggestion about BP would be of no great concern. There are vague references above to the article being agenda driven, but exactly which agenda isn't mentioned. The only agenda that I can guess at is that of those who oppose BSA's position on homosexuality. So it is actually those wanting to defend BSA who are agenda driven here, whatever that really means. The literature exists. It is now widely known about (at least partly because the suggestions in it led to its opponents talking about it so much). The article is therefore valid. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what the cuss are you talking about? "I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America". Is this supposed to be some kind of troll? JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The possible homophobia of some editors is surely not a valid reason to keep an article and more than the homophile (not sure that that is is right word to describe active promotion & advocation of homosexual issues but it seems like the closest I know) attitude of others? DiverScout (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the minimal amount of speculation by some of his biographers about this man's sexuality should go in the main article, or possibly the article(s) on the individual biographer(s) but not in a stand-alone piece. I am not seeing the 'seeming homophobia' that HiLo48 is. (Full disclosure: I have no connection whatsoever with the "Boy Scouts of America" or the "Boy Scouts of Anywhere Else"). pablo_hablo. 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure - Fair enough, for the record I also have no connections to the Boy Scouts of America, indeed I vocally oppose their views on the matter of their treatment of homosexuals. I also have no interest in the sexuality of either B-P (or the other editors). I do maintain, however, that, in the context of the notability of Robert Baden-Powell, allegations relating to his sexuality do not merit the attention they are being given here. DiverScout (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that anyone here who is endorsing that this article be kept must hold some sort of anti Boy Scouts of America agenda. (SEE HOW FUCKING RIDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS?) JBsupreme (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shut up, you homophobe! pablo_hablo. 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A worthless article that exists only to repeat an unsubstantiated theory posed by a single biographer with a revisionist history agenda. This should have been thrown out a long time ago. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a single biographer and how do you know he has a revisionist history agenda? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jeal is the only biographer who is going out on a limb to suggest (not prove, suggest) that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. It doesn't appear that any of B-P's other biographers are willing to go that far. Putting this spin into his life story is revisionism.Warrah (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient for standalone article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Side a: There are scholarly books that discuss this issue. Side b: There is no hard proof of this, just speculation and theories. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JBsupreme - not so much a troll as trawling for information. I have learnt that when one is negotiating things it's likely to be most successful if the true motives and goals of all the participants can be ascertained. Many people won't declare such things up front. Sevaral of the Delete posts above seem pretty thin on substance. Approaches like mine can be confrontational in the short term, but usually bring out more honesty about the real aims of the various participants in a discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that that speculation has risen over decades certainly to a notable level. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no shortage of sources for this article. In fact the extent of the sources resulted in the section in the main article on Baden-Powell becoming too long. This fork was a perfectly proper fork to handle this. We now have more sources. Recently it was mentioned on the talk page that the suggestion that Baden-Powell was homosexual was first made in 1979 by Piers Brendon in Eminent Edwardians. In fact I was reading that book yesterday while this AfD was started. Reference on the talk page is also made to Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting, which apparently discusses Jeal's views. That book is on delivery to me. Rosenthal is mentioned but reference to his book, The Character Factory, a scholarly account of Baden-Powell and the origins of the Scout Movement, is not even referenced now, although I think it was at one time. This is far from one person's (Jeal) views, and Jeal has also been widely noticed. This is a difficult article. On the one hand we have members of the Scout Movement who can not face up to the suggestion that their beloved founder might have been gay (for example the section on B-Ps main article on his sexuality is frequently blanked with no explanation). On the other hand we have the gay lobby that wants to make too much of it. I believe we can follow a middle way, that is the wikipedia way, by following the sources carefully. The internet is not that helpful. The sources need access to a library. Too many people have waded into this debate, first on the talk page and now here, without looking at the sources. I was getting these sources together to start an improvement drive on this article, when this AfD was proposed, and I would like to finish it, although it may take time. BTW, both Tim Jeal and his book Baden-Powell (book) have articles on wikipedia, but I do not believe this article should be merged there as Jeal's book is much wider and it would give undue weight to one chapter. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole article gives undue weight to (mainly) that one chapter which is either some kind of forensic psychoanalysis or speculation! pablo_hablo. 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs improvement and it has been degraded, but it seems to me that every biographical article on Baden-Powell since the late 1970s mentions this aspect of Baden-Powell. At least I know of no exceptions. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at about the weight proportional to its representation in the article on Robert Baden-Powell. This is a content fork to provide detail of undue weight on a subject of minor speculation, but no verifiable information. Two paragraphs in the main article is what this should be.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very large article in Wikipedia on Jesus. None of the information about him in it is verifiable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally just pretty much spouted Jeal's views and allowed no counters to be made. In fact counter-arguments were agressively removed with editors (including me) being told to leave it alone so as not to upset the "gay lobby" (I always wonder whether that is the name for a room at the front of my house...). The fork is totally out of balance in terms of its notability in relation to the life of the individual. It is, however, pretty much the only thing that most people seem to make comment on with regard to Jeal's book which would suggest that it could be far more sensible to locate the more detailed commentary on Jeal's reasoning there. Giving Jeal's views in an article about Jeal's book just seems a lot more appropriate. Similar treatment could then be given to the other notable texts with links from a short overview paragraph in the main Baden-Powell page. The information stays on Wikipedia, people can read what each text proposes in a format that allows them then to see where the information comes from and we dispose of an article that has no real sustance of its own. DiverScout (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes this thing weird and maddening. I have never been and am not now a member of the scouts ("am not now and never been a member of the american communist party," too). I don't care who people fuck. Period. But what we have here is a whole article that boils down to this: "Some people have theorized that Baden-Powell had homosexual desires that he never acted upon or commented upon publicly." Let's assume that's "true" (truth value unknowable of course in the absence of some new diary/letter etc... coming to light, which seems unlikely): Who cares? Is this something crying out for its own spin-off article as a coatrack for people angry at the homophobia of a lot of modern scouting organizations? Is it crying out for a spinoff for people who just know that he wasn't gay so much as a child-molester (a subtext to all that "naked boy" nonsense?) No rational encyclopedia with editors skilled in the humanities would even consider a separate article on this. Mention? Yes. It's currently about 5% of the text of the main article (i excluded the lists), with its own subsection (one of 7) that addresses it. Which is about what a rational encyclopedia should do (particularly an open edit one that has a constant POV problem).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I !=voted to "keep" the article in a previous AFD, but I am persuaded by Moreschi's arguments above that this is a content fork built on too slim a foundation to justify an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rule in Wikipedia is to give the state of science. All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. That is in the article, properly referenced. The article also mentions arguments which question this opinion (most from me), dangerously approaching to be not allowed original research. But that is the limit. It is not allowed to delete an article because you don't agree with science. Then do research and change the scientifice opinion. Then Wikipedia will follow. DParlevliet (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and psychohistorians they may be, but none of them have anything other than speculation. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There is no science here. pablo_hablo. 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, and I partly agree. But as editors we are not allowed to judge scientific scholars because that is personal opinion. We are only allowed to give the content of publications which are widely regarded to be scientific. That is Wiki rule. If you want to fight their opinion you must use the scientific way: write articles which are better then theirs. Wikipedia does not allow to use its platform for this. DParlevliet (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "scientific scholars" are you referring to? Jeal is a novelist and writes biographies. Has he published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and does he have a doctorate in a science? Is he a member of a science faculty at a university? We are not required to blindly repeat everything every biographer states, when it may be speculation. Edison (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. " No, they don't. A couple of recent authors of commercial bibliographys have attempted to suggest that he may have had homosexual leanings. That is all. Several others have gone against this, and their views are no less deserving simply because they published prior to Jeal et al. DiverScout (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please correct or delete the excessive unnecessary redirects in the box at the top to previous Afds, thanks. I would do it but I would likely break the wiki, the two repeated redirects appear to not be needed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is criticizing and debating scholarly sources. The topic is amply sourced. However, the article as it presently stands after the edits of the past few days has become a mockery of intelligent and responsible editing and will have to be repaired when and if cooler heads prevail. Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep: The last nomination was a 'keep' and nominator doesn't explain why consensus should have changed. It does seem a bit much to have a separate article about this, but that's an organizational question.--Milowent (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that both this article and the Sexuality section in Baden-Powell's article fail to draw a contrast between homosexuality and pederasty; this should be rectified regardless of whether this article is kept.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this is important and many nuances really should be dealt with dispassionately. Unfortunately the discussion that was taking place got highjacked by this AFD/edit-warring. There is a good article here but the drama does need to be reigned in one way or another. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per Moreschi above. It's basically a synthesis of opinions previously laid out in two books, both of which seem largely unsubstantiated. At worst, merge with Robert Baden-Powell, at best just delete it - Alison ^❤ 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Moreschi. Jacina (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing of substance here. - Schrandit (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schrandit is right! There IS nothing of substance here any more since the article has suffered a hatchet job over the past few days. So how do you people have the nerve to come in, deface an article, and then submit the dregs for deletion??? This is the stratagem that you are trying to impose on Wikipedia, and you are trying to pull it off by ganging up on the article and bulldozing your way through it. Let's see if you succeed. Haiduc (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive undue weight, and synthesis. Essentially an essay given that the vast majority is speculation. Was going to afd this myself. Viridae ^Talk 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]