Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Cove Camp


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kirby Cove Camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep-I think it still should pass-it seems good enough from the looks of it. Wgolf (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be legitimately notable as both a former military installation and as a notable geographic location within a national recreation area. Examples of coverage  --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Those appear to be tourist directories, and not the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per the coverage supplied by Arxiloxos. WP:GNG makes no discrimination of coverage from travel books.  As long as the coverage is independent of the subject and significant, it suffices.--Oakshade (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "As long as the coverage is... significant"- precisely; in this case, it is not. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And that coverage is significant. The primary example WP:GNG gives to non-significant coverage is a "one sentence mention" in a piece about another topic.  The travel books sources are far beyond a "one sentence mention" and go very into detail of this topic.  That's significant by both WP:GNG and common standards. --Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos, as the site of a former military installation. One could argue for a rename to Battery Kirby, with the park info added to it, but thats another matter, as it wouldnt require deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 2 May 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.