Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Cabins 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (5 merge, 3 keep, 2 delete). Robert 23:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, 11 Google hits for the first, unverified, unverifiable. --Blackcap | talk 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There's a slew of these nn camps spawning from Philmont Scout Ranch. I could only do so many, and now I'm heading off to bed. I'd love it if someone finished them off. --Blackcap | talk 06:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them all. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge them all into Philmont Scout Ranch under the List of Trail Camps section Joaquin Murietta 10:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to Philmont Scout Ranch. Maybe be not notable to you and me, likely very notable to BSA. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly verifiable; I own at least one book which catalogs each camp's history and culture. Many of these have historical significance (hideouts for outlaws; ancient artifacts found nearby; major mining disasters) which predate the BSA's involvement. Google is not an accurate test here because, despite its enormous significance, Philmont and relevant subjects have almost no web presence. — Dan | Talk 02:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I concur with Dan. Most of these articles are notable and are worth keeping. My question is, how should these articles be presented? Should they be in their own article space, merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, inserted as a subpage under Philmont Scout Ranch (despite a consensus against subpages), or another option that hasn't been considered yet? Solarusdude 04:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A List perhaps? --Maru (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, a search for "Rich Cabins" (without the "camp") turns up rather more results. — Dan | Talk 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I concur with Dan. Most of these articles are notable and are worth keeping. My question is, how should these articles be presented? Should they be in their own article space, merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, inserted as a subpage under Philmont Scout Ranch (despite a consensus against subpages), or another option that hasn't been considered yet? Solarusdude 04:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per above. My dad went to Philmont once; these are important to Philmont. --Maru (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. These would make far more sense as part of the main article. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Merging them into a single article or list is not a good idea because if information is added the article would be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles. Check out the WikiProject, the Philmont Scout Ranch category, and the article List of Philmont camps as well as the changes to the main Philmont article and a few of the camps (added an infobox).--L1AM 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawmill Camp --Woggly 07:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.