Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Project Wales


 * 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 redirect to United Reformed Church. Content can be merged from article history if desired. ansh 666 09:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Camp Project Wales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Was redirected to church, but this was reverted as there had been no discussion about the subject's notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources now update and added - notably to UK Government website for currently active registered charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmondp (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * lists like this do not contribute to notability. Requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. See WP:42. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Since when is the UK Government official web site not a reliable independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmondp (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, the UK Government is a reliable source, but it only establishes that the charity exists, not that it is notable. Registered charities are probably not automatically notable. I have found two independent sources, albeit with limited relevant content.
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Selective merge this and Fellowship of United Reformed Youth, another youth program of the same church, to United Reformed Church. Third-party coverage, insofar as I can access it, appears too superficial to establish notability for either, but both can be briefly covered in the context of an article about the church as a whole. Failing that, delete.  Sandstein   09:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to United Reformed Church. I think Sandstein has this one right. The UK Government's official web site may be reliable, but in order to establish notability, we need coverage that is in-depth and comes from secondary sources, sources which are one step removed from an event. Given the scarcity of secondary sources here, I think merging is an acceptable compromise as it preserves the content that is verifiable while acknowledging that the subject may not have standalone notability. Mz7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like Sandstein, I'm also unopposed to deletion if brief coverage at the church article is seen as inadvisable to other editors. Mz7 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The camp has not shown notability, besides a sentence in a book and a local interest article about a Santa float, has almost no web site, and is not even part of the church any more, so there's no proper place to merge anything to. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete.  My own searching failed to find any useful sources.  I would normally support the idea of a merge/redirect per WP:ATD, but I don't see anything here that's worth merging.  I'm not strictly opposed to a merge/redirect, I just don't see the point.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2018 (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.