Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Eagle


 * 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. Mango juice talk 14:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Camp Eagle
Contested prod. Article about a summer camp not asserting notability under WP:ORG or WP:CORP. If the article is correct, a notable incident occurred on the property in 1975, before the camp was opened in 1998-1999, but that should be covered in an article on the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the relevant law, not at a summer camp article. GRBerry 20:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * merge the notable incident to an article on the law (or the US FaWS if the former doesn't exist), delete the rest. Thryduulf 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm new to Wiki so this is a real question. How do you interpret notability? WP:ORG criteria states: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable UNLESS verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found."
 * Here are some third party sources:
 * Texas Bicycle Coalition Large Texas Bicycle Coalition article ending with "Once the trail system is completed, it will be one of the best in Texas." Seems notable and verifiable. TXBRA Texas Bicycle Race Association Event Listing - Cyclocross Race
 * Bike Trials Event Listing - Trials Competition
 * TMBRA Texas Mountain Bike Race Association Event Listing - Mountain Bike Race —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fencipede (talk • contribs).
 * Respond I usually look for coverage about the subject of the article.  So I'm looking more for coverage about the camp than about the race that occurs there.  That isn't strictly required, but the notability guidelines exist so that 1) we don't indiscriminately collect data on non-encyclopedic topics and 2) we have some reason to believe that enough reliable sources about the topic of the article exists that someday we can produce an article fully adhering to the policies on being verifiable and having a neutral point of view.  Coverage about the subject is stronger  evidence for that future article than coverage mentioning the subject.  Also, you are welcome to opine as to whether the article should be kept; see WP:AFD for the general etiqutte for these discussions, including bolding your opinion once you issue one.  GRBerry 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-Peta 04:45, 19 September 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.