Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature 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   redirect to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nature Camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Zero sources, fails WP:V. No bias against retention if RSs can be found before close, or against recreation if sources become available later --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources see and appears largely verifiable. Not to say that it shouldn't be gutted a bit for WP:NPOV and possible WP:V issues in places (maybe even stubified) and then rebuilt. Polargeo (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - sources are local. No national coverage. Does not meet criteria in WP:ORG.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can be reduced to a few sentences and merged to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests per WP:Local.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge sounds good to me too. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as per SilkTork. The main problem I have with this entry is that the name is non-unique. Polargeo found media hits by searching for "Nature Camp" "George Washington". But if you omit "George Washington" from the search, you find lots of hits for other, equally well-sourced entities called "Nature Camp" in Florida, Connecticut, Tennessee, and probably other places; I didn't look any further. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verifiable information from significant sources are found. I did not see even a hint of notability in the text, and thee are no WP:RS backing the article. Google cont does not equate to notability. Dloh  cierekim  07:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question has anyone done a side-by-side comparison between the article and the subject's webpage? The lead and a later paragraph are derived from the webpage. It's late at night or early morning, so maybe I'm not seeing clearly, but I would like to suggest CSDG11 w/ a dash of G12.   Dloh  cierekim  07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one para 3 line 1.  Dloh  cierekim  07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Google search for "Nature Camp" " the Virginia Federation" I have not been through all these, so I don't know. If anyone would care to winnow. This is an example of what I found. Only blurbs, asides, and promo's. Nothing significant. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Dloh  cierekim  08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS and then off to bed With all due respect to Polargeo, I'm afraid those news links all point to trivial blurbs and mentions that are not enough, really, to satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG. A local paragraph or three, here and there, (at most) and mostly about a fortunate child winning a scholarship to go there, and not supporting the content of the article. G'night, Dloh  cierekim  08:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS- I don't think there's enough notability to warrant a merge.  Dloh  cierekim  16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per polargeo. It's labeled as a stub and there is enough material around to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV with a little work. If the page isn't improved in a few months, delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think the available material shows that this particular camp is in any way distinctive.   DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests for now. There are significant sources as linked by User:Polargeo. Perhaps in the future, it can be written with the available sources in an npov manner.-- Pink Bull  18:08, 17 March 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.