Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Camp Family Resource Center


 * 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   merge to Happy Camp, California. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Camp Family Resource Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an organization offering vaguely-defined "family-oriented services" in Happy Camp (Siskiyou County), California. GNews shows a one-sentence mention in a USA Today article about gas prices, and then there's the local coverage the article cites, such as from the Siskiyou Daily. I don't see anything approaching "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," especially in light of WP:CORP's admonition that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm willing to treat local newspapers as RS; the coverage of this organization in such media is significant, showing notability per WP:GNG. The sentence from WP:CORP quoted in the nomination is not supported by community consensus. It's generally accepted that, barring BLP problems, subjects are notable if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write decent articles about them. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I disagree that sentence in CORP does not reflect community community consensus. We do not pick and discard portions of the guidelines based on a claim that it is not supported by consensus during an AfD. If it truly isn't supported, it would have been or should've been debated and removed at the guideline level. Not during a deletion discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then again, the notability guidelines are supposed to accurately describe common practice at AFD. We don't want to freeze the guidelines by insisting that they be adhered to in all AFDs, then using the AFD results to justify the current guidelines. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge - It may be a one-sentence mention, but it's USA TODAY--impressive for a small organization in such a tiny and remote town IMHO. There is plenty of obscure (but notable) factoids and tidbits on Wikipedia, that's what makes it interesting to me. The local news mentions are from two different counties in California. Anyway, I'm not done searching for more refs. Give it a chance. Lokedawgg (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * merge to Happy Camp, California. No independent notability. The inclusion in an USA Today article is more of a ref for the town, not the center.   When newspapers or magazines pick typical examples to add human interest to their stories, it does not make them individually notable, unless the particular person of place or organizations becomes widely noticed, as does happen, but not all that often.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's true, "Happy Camp" is the first part of the name anyway. The Family Resource Center plays a very important role in Happy Camp, everybody here knows that and I just wanted to express that here on Wikipedia because not many people outside realize it. However, you're probably right about the importance level: it isn't important enough in the scope of Wikipedia to merit it's own article, yet. Could you help me merge it into the Happy Camp, California article in a way that doesn't over- or under-emphasize, or otherwise break Wikiprotocol? ...Pending consensus of course! Thanks! Lokedawgg (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, article makes no claim of notability, of local interest only. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Local results yes, through county-wide, state-wide and federal efforts. Also a Google web search of "happy camp family resource center" turns up 6,650 results--most of which are positive hits, I wouldn't call that insignificant. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see one Google News hit, a Google Books hit that is a mention in "Northwest Forest Plan, the First 10 Years (1994-2003)" and a mention in Socioeconomic Monitoring Results]. These are primary sources and not remotely sufficient. Your claim of 6650 Google hits is false; there are only 67.  Abductive  (reasoning) 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an aside: I'm not sure how you're searching but there are 6,650 hits if you search this way (in quotes--as in the way I originally referenced the search): http://www.google.com/search?q=%22happy+camp+family+resource+center%22.
 * To the point: You are discounting all the references in the article, which include Reliable Sources as outlined in WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on the '10' in those results, and the truth is revealed. Do you seriously think a tiny organization such as this has thousands of mentions on the internet? Does everybody in Happy Camp {pop. 1143) have a blog? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Okay, you're right about the number of results--I was clicking 'next' and exploring each result--I wasn't finished adding refs. My mistake about the number of results (why does Google display: 'Results 1 - 10 of about 6,650 for "happy camp family resource center". (0.15 seconds)' if there are only 70-ish? Weird.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is using an algorithm which is no doubt catching pages which contain the phrase "happy camper". Abductive  (reasoning) 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge Contrary to what people are saying here, there are over a dozen reliable, independent sources which point to the existence of this entity and it's importance in the community of Happy Camp. Specifically, which references are unreliable or irrelevant? I would honestly like to know, thanks 65.170.243.110 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your dedication to your town—and nobody doubts that the Family Resource Center exists. However, "But it exists!" isn't really the issue, nor is "It's very important to the residents." Most of the sources are primary documents, a listing in an agency web directory, and so on, so unfortunately what they don't point to, by and large, is that this is a notable organization for purposes of an encyclopedia of global scope.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, you've really "heard it all before" here. I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be snarky, if that's how it came off.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glen, no. I didn't think you were. I wasn't trying to be a snark either. I was genuinely impressed :) &mdash;NLI 65.170.243.110 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. Not enough here for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (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.