Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest School Camps


 * 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   keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Forest School Camps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article of unclear notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Area of unclear notability" is not a deletion reason, at all.  Meaning what?  Something about camps?  It is not asserted that wp:Before has been performed, and the article suggests notability, so I see no reason to consider deletion.  Article includes link to "FSC in the news", by the way. -- do  ncr  am  17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep. Why would this page be deleted? It's informative, accurate (so far as I'm aware), interesting, useful. My daughter is on camp and I wanted to know what she meant by 'tracker' in a letter she sent home - Wikipedia has the answer, and useful links and references too.Simon (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC) — Simoncorder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. F.S.C. Is still a highly relevant organisation, that is active in running camps for children. This article is a valuable resource for the children who camp and their parents. It could be expanded upon but should not be deleted. 22:26 26th August 2014 (GMT)
 * This comment was from a non-registered I.P. editor. -- do ncr  am  01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please keep the article on FSC (Forest School Camps ) . It may need amending perhaps with references to its status in the United Kingdom, its registration with the UK Charities Commission (no 306006) and as a company at the UK Companies House. The article is also of use to both members and non members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datdad (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)  — Datdad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. FSC is a long established and respected educational charity. What possible reason could there be for deleting any article about such an organisation? There have been recent updates and expansions, to the article, no doubt prompted by people in FSC suddenly being made aware of this AfD. I have made some such additions myself. (It is for others to say whether they are improvments.) In the past I recall reading articles on FSC in mainstream national newspapers, but I have no references. Some of these articles will pre-date the internet. However, it is important to note that FSC tends to discourage such articles, as they have often produced huge numbers of enquiries which, as a totally voluntary organisation, FSC is ill-equipped to deal with, so FSC does not publicise them. --User:Russell Cumbria — Russell Cumbria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I added a signature above, for the commenter Russell Cumbria. -- do ncr  am  01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — PatrickGuinness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a list of SPA's mass-voting on this AfD, so I've relisted it. I'm not sure consensus is really to keep.  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just to note, I am not a single purpose account however.  And as I commented first, I don't believe the deletion nomination itself is valid. -- do  ncr  am  01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:GNG - Enough coverage of the topic in secundary sources. I have added some sources to the article. -- Taketa (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Guardian article and the listing by the government there. Busy Moose (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not an SPA, you can call me a 'toe dipper' - who thinks Wikipedia is a jewel of the internet... And to repeat myself - I can see no reason to delete this article, which is useful, accurate, and informative... not to mention with references as mentioned above. Simon (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and WP:GNG SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd never heard of this organization before, but the articles in the Independent and Guardian meet the requirements of WP:SECONDARY - articles on the subject in reliable, independent national newspapers.  By the way, I don't think it needs to be in the list of list of Ireland-related deletion discussions (which is how I came upon the AFD). Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (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.