Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Life Ranch


 * 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  Delete. This article is essentially based on just one source&mdash;the camp's website. Since there is no third party sources, I hold that the camp is not notable and the article should be deleted (with all my regret). Ruslik (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Life Ranch

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable summer camp, fails WP:ORG, no sourcing to indicate notability. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - without reliable source, the whole article is an original research, which violates the core policy. Unless notability is proven, I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep- It seem alright, it isn't particularly notable, or have outside sources. But WHERE would you find outside sources for something like this in any event. It isn't a terrible article, it could be alright in my opinion with a re-write and more sources, a deletion is probably extreme
 * So your rationale is that the camp isn't notable and sources to establish notability are not likely to be found but we should keep the article anyway because it ain't so bad? TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't find outside reliable sources then it fails the general notability guideline. Secondly, WP:NOHARM isn't a reason either for keep. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A summer camp would generally neither notable or verifiable enough for an article, and the fact that this one is padded out with straight-off-the-brochure advertising copy and a dumb joke/hoax ("Hook Man") strongly suggests this one is no exception. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep It is at least locally notable per   but decidely needs rewriting.  Collect (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – With regret. I fully realize that one or more editors put a lot of time and energy into the piece.  It is well written and has some great photos.  However, concerning meeting  notability standards for organizations and companies (see by clicking the preceding blue link) standards, it does not come close.  I searched the internet – Google general – Google News and even took a shot at Google Scholar.  Sorry, no 3rd party – not even 2nd party sources to be found.  On the other hand, hopefully, the original authors of the piece will continue to participate here at Wikipedia, they did a great job from the writing aspect of the piece.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This seems to me more than just the usual summer camp, and it needs a check for local print sources. DGG (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I tried and the only thing I could come up with is this and this .  As you can see 0 on Google and only 6 pieces from the local newspaper with 5 just mentioning the ranch.  I even spent a couple hours going through a passive Google search, as shown here, and was only able to come up with the organization’s website - which I looked at for references - Phone listing - driving directions and Yellow page listings, along with a few blogs.  I am more than happy to change my opinion, but I need something solid to do so. ShoesssS Talk 16:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep The camp is exceptionally notable and important to people living in Northeastern Oklahoma. Not having scholarly articles or press releases does not make in unworthy of a page.  There are PLENTY of less wortyh articles on Wikipedia that we do not need to be so worried about this one.  NLR is THE overnight summer camp to attend in the area.  It should stay simply so parents and campers can come look for it and learn something before or after their visit.  Probably needs a more objective/appropriate rewrite, but otherwise represents an important summer institution to a specific region.  JPGrigg  (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for something to be notable in Wikipedia it needs wide third party coverage. It shouldn't stay simply as a guide for prospective parents and students. WP:NOT. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to rewrite the article and leave it at your mercy, doing my best to prove notability. However, I am unsure of the standards (i have read them). Specifically, if "A summer camp would generally neither notable or verifiable enough for an article" then the article should be deleted. If, because it is a camp and retreat center it is inherently unnotible, and because the scope of notability is local (extending perhaps 5 hours driving time from NLR, i know of only two national citations, and they are in niche publications), then i see no reason to make the attempt. I guess what im getting at is trying to really understand what it takes to make something notable before i spend a lot of time on it, when the result is really already decided just by the nature of the organization. Anyway, my apologize if this is the wrong place for this discussion. (for the sake of full disclosure: i did not originate this article, but i did make some contributions. Also, i am an employee of NLR) Poolhouseblack (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * conflict of interest policy prevents you from voting in a deletion discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

michellencrisp, fair enough.75.121.19.32 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't have substantial media coverage it's not notable per our guidelines. Sometimes it's possible to improve an article to demonstrate notability (by adding referenced content), but subjects that don't meet the guidelines are difficult to "make notable". If there is news coverage you've missed, that might make a difference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does nothing to establish notability and searches provide nothing that would count as an independent reliable source. Nuttah (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

michellencrisp, fair enough. I will spend some time finding the references i know of and post them. 75.121.19.32 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * comment This discussion is in no way a reflection on the good qualities of the camp. Very few camps are included here. The ones that are have to be able to demonstrate notability based on substantial media coverage. Many "good" subjects don't get articles, many "bad" subjects do. I think the camp sounds like a wonderful place, but our policies don't support including it unless it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You may be able to put some of the information in other articles and redirect to one of them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (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.