Talk:Camp Thunder

Notability
While some independent sources have been provided, none of these citations have significant coverage of the subject, and most of the content in the article is taken from non-independent sources. As such, I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. signed,Rosguill talk 00:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the article needs to discuss more of the history, but I think this is notable. --evrik (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any additional sources to provide to back up that opinion? signed,Rosguill talk 05:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources about this camp. What should do is expand the article. --evrik (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources about this camp. What should do is expand the article. --evrik (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This overlaps with the poorly sourced Flint River Council. I'm not at all convinced that this article is likely to survive AFD with its current focus and sourcing. I believe pivoting the article to the Lawhorn base as a whole is more likely to survive (some of the sources are for the broader area, but even so the sourcing is not good). FWIW, I'd prefer everything were just merged everything under FRC, but I can't guarantee that a questionable WP:BRANCH argument and appeals to sanity/WP:NPOINTS/WP:OSE/WP:IAR/... would be more likely to preserve the council than a weak WP:GEOLAND argument would preserve the base. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support merging with the council article until this becomes more substantial. --evrik (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merging sounds good to me. signed,Rosguill talk 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)