Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safari Zoo 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 Jungle Cat World.  Sandstein  07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Safari Zoo Camp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Written like an advertisement.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jungle Cat World, where the camp is already discussed, per Editing policy. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about Safari Zoo Camp. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Sure, there are faults of this article (it has promotional language ("exciting and unique") and dubious claim ("The only residential summer camp of its kind in the world"), but this is quite likely a valid topic for a Wikipedia article.  However obviously it properly could be a section of the Jungle Cat World article and/or could be covered in a list-article of programs of its type, say.  The suggested target is better sourced, and there is no length problem requiring this to be split out as a separate article, so redirecting back is okay, as an editing matter.  However it also would be fine if this is re-split out if/when there is much more substantial, sourced development. --Doncram (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (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.