Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crooked Creek 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 of the debate was Delete Karmafist 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crooked Creek Camp

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing notable in these articles, nor is it verified. The best solution would be to just un-link from Philmont Scout Ranch. Not every campsite needs an article. --Blackcap | talk 06:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Relisting. Not enough votes. --Woohookitty 10:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable camp. — JIP | Talk 11:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- but maybe move? Per L1AM & Solarusdude
• Delete as per Blackcap, and unlink the camps and other non-notable things in that article. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [List of Philmont camps] and redirect (or keep). --SPUI (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all of the linked things such as this one, if the current main article allows . Otherwise, keep. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and fix the problem by removing all of the red links in List of Philmont camps and replacing them with bolds. Vegaswikian 06:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and their brothers too. Denni☯ 08:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Blackcap. Xoloz 17:23, 14 October 2005 (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.