Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Batawagama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Batawagama

Camp Batawagama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Originally speedy-tagged as spam, but the author, User:The Umbrella Corporation, created it as a good-faith effort to document a local place that really does not seem notable. About 300 google hits, mostly mentioned by former campers or local listings; no non-trivial unique coverage. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. nn. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete After a little searching, difficult to establish notability. Navou talk 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Адам12901 Talk
  • Delete for lack of third-party coverage--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Meno25 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -300ghits, and lots of them seem to be people's vacation pics from there. SkierRMH,07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a legitimate, public place. No reason it shouldn't have a short article in wikipedia. --Lee Vonce 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That something exists isn't necessarily an indicator that it belongs in wikipedia.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -fails all WP:NOTE guidelines, and on top of that (and most importantly) has no hope of every achieving any of them. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It sounds like its a permanent kind of thing known about by hundreds of people - I'd say its notable enough. GB 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That something "sounds" notable does not make it notable. Lots of stuff is "known about" by way more than hundreds of people but that does not, in itself, make it notable nor does it make potential notability automatically verifiable. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:43, 9 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.