Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford Sierra Camp (2nd Nomination)


 * 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 but cleanup (notability established). Patstuarttalk 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanford Sierra Camp

 * — (View AfD)

The first nomination: Articles for deletion/Stanford Sierra Camp

Pointless article. Half of the US doesn't know about this camp and Wikipedia is not a tourist guide to show what fun things there are to do at this camp. The sections are useless and small because their isn't enough infromation In one of the paragraphs it talks about John Stienbeck, a famous artist. This isn't notable enough. It's tone is better though. Carpet9 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT an advertisement. Axem Titanium 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. By the way, if anybody really wants to keep the infromation I have it userfied in my userspace. Carpet9 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I thought this should be deleted until I started digging a bit, but it actually seems to be fairly notable as a local landmark. For example, it's covered in pretty significant detail in this article in the New York Times. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone ahead and updated our article with some of the info from the NYT profile. There are other sources listed on a LexisNexis search (including big profiles in the LA Times, SF Chronicle, and Contra Costa Times), but none are free to access and I'll have to leave them for someone else. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by "our article" I meant the article in Wikipedia, as opposed to the article in the Times. I have no connection to the camp. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice talk 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per HBWS' impressive detective work. -Toptomcat 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably Keep Except it reads like an advertisement. Their hours and rentals can be put on the camps page, rather than using Wikipedia to camp their ads.  KP Botany 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a case for fixing the article, not deleting it. -Toptomcat 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Still, it's sometimes hard to see what we're keeping when it's all an ad.  I don't really see any good reason for deleting it.  I sit on the other side at Big Games and still I've heard of it.  KP Botany 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleanup to remove spam. Ohconfucius 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep "half of the US doesnt know about the camp" as a reason for deletion? -- well, that seems to assert that half the US does know about the camp, and that would perhaps make it the most notable of all camps.DGG 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --- RockMFR 03:19, 14 January 2007 (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.