Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Ponds


 * 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   Redirected to Salvation Army camps in Canada. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Twin Ponds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a completely non-notable Salvation Army camp. Kelly hi! 23:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Its desolate location makes it worth knowing. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Camps can be notable as human settlements of a kind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Summer_camps_in_Canada), this one seems to have 100-200 people at times. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Its desolate location..." isn't an argument for anything. Gwen, I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be rewriting WP:NPLACE; I don't see anything in NPLACE that would apply here. Conversely, there's nothing in the article that suggests this passed the GNG, and I can't find anything through Google that makes this noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems like it's closer to a hotel than to a town or other populated place. This isn't a place people live, this is a place people visit sometimes, right? The lack of sources makes this harder to understand, but this appears to be a retreat or summer camp, which is basically a commercial operation with religious ties. Having a capacity of a couple hundred people isn't the same as having a population of a couple hundred people. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to be a permanently populated place, and cited sources do not suffice to show notability. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks to be more of a business entity since it is rented out so WP:NORG might be a way to look at it, in which case it fails. It is not a permanently populated place, nor would I call it an 'attraction or landmark' so NPLACE does not apply. It does not come close to passing GNG. J bh  Talk  12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a place but a small part/facility of a larger organisation. Not notable in any way. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - oh man, there are a whole bunch of these. I just noticed Salvation Army camps in Canada. Kelly  hi! 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. A mass series of WP:POINTy, WP:WIKIHOUNDing nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are now being WP:POINTy yourself, User:Shawn in Montreal! Also 'oppose' is not a valid position. It is quite right that these issues be raised. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've changed this !vote to a comment. As for this vendetta to purge Wikipedia of all Neelix created articles -- notable or not, often with the flimsiest of rationales from Kelly -- I think it's a disservice to this project and to these perfectly innocent organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a flimsy rationale, I think it's a flimsy article. The innocence of the organization is not a factor in determining if the article is worth keeping. This was presented neutrally, so unless there's some evidence to the contrary, words like "vendetta" don't seem to be assuming good faith. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't !vote to keep this article. But WP:AGF is not a carte blanche. Based on what I've seen at other Afds by Kelly today, these are in many cases not merit-based rationales. Time and again, I've seen notable Canadian organizations taken to Afd with flimsy, cookie cutter rationales. I never said we keep articles on the basis of "innocence," of course, I simply meant Afds on articles that do meet WP:ORG, such as Articles for deletion/Servants Anonymous Society, Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta, Articles for deletion/NASHI and Articles for deletion/A Better World. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shawn stop being the pot calling the kettle black. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 13:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Salvation Army camps in Canada, as merging/redirecting to the parent article generally is the standard in situations like this. Apparently Twin Ponds is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but certainly it is worth mentioning in the relevant list. Cavarrone 06:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just setup Salvation Army camps in Canada last night, and put this one in there too now.  The Salvation Army camps in Canada is now at TfD.  I think we can close this one out  Kelly   since the info is preserved and a decent article covering all Canadian camps created instead. All camps redirected to the one article.  Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudos for creating that page. I agree Salvation Army camps in Canada makes this AfD moot. Cavarrone 08:02, 10 November 2015 (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.