Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Concord

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 (small organisation w/o any sourced achievements) - blanket "keep-everything" votes by and per Frijole were ignored. Nabla 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Concord

Camp Concord (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable summer camp. The only mention I could find is an evacuation due to a wildfire. Clarityfiend 02:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article makes no claim of notability for the camp.--Danaman5 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly merge a mention to Concord, California. It's a little unusual for a city to operate a sleepaway camp outside its borders, but I don't see any reason it's notable. --Dhartung | Talk 12:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the can of worms that is deleting for non-notability is a messy one. let's just say I thought it was notable enough to write the article, and others through it was notable enough to contribute to. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per lack of sources attesting to its notability. Just because others have contributed to it does not mean that it is notable Corpx 04:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Frijole. --PEAR (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I saw this: [1] Well, if the city has a page of its history that is an excellent start. Plus plenty of info from that to improve the article (and as it currently stands it needs a lot of improvement!!). Only making this a weak keep because I haven't bothered to dig any deeper than the first couple of google results.... lol, yeah is lazy! But anyway, the point holds that it should be a treated as a stronger keep if any more sources pop up. Mathmo ^Talk 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I was searching for information on Camp Concord and happened upon the Wikipedia entry. If anything it needs a minor cleanup, but other a definite keep. Jgw 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I second Frijole. Killsound 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• 'weak keep' Obviously Frijole's comment should be disregarded since it amounts to saying that because notability is sometimes difficult to discern we should keep everything. That's obviously wrong. However, the source given by Mathmo is a decent source. On the other hand, it is from the city itself, so I'm not sure it is an independent source for WP:N/WP:V purposes. JoshuaZ 01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to delete Corpx is correct. Comment above about Frijole's opinion still stands. JoshuaZ 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• City of concord is not an independent source since they're involved with the camp Corpx 02:04, 11 August 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.