![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Done
Council camps are not notable outside the council. This should be renamed to the council and expanded. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of further discussion, I have moved and expanded the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The notability tag was just removed from this article with the comment plenty of other Scout camps have articles, the reason why I placed the notability tag on this article was that the article did not provide any proof of notability, the notability guideline relevant for this article would be WP:CORP it says An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, there are no sources provided in the article and I could not find any on a quick search. Using the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid means of establishing notability in my opinion. I would highly recommend that this article be merged into Daniel Webster Council or its notability established using reliable sources.-- Captain-tucker ( talk) 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I could see a temporary merge of the topic into Daniel Webster Council, as the previously proposed "top-down" architecture. In time and with enough interest, the camp could be respun off into it's own article. In the mean time it would provide a notable amount of content for the Council in a Camps section. The lack of suitable web presences and available information has been restricting in further research gathering. Skydive23 ( talk) 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Done
Council camps are not notable outside the council. This should be renamed to the council and expanded. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of further discussion, I have moved and expanded the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The notability tag was just removed from this article with the comment plenty of other Scout camps have articles, the reason why I placed the notability tag on this article was that the article did not provide any proof of notability, the notability guideline relevant for this article would be WP:CORP it says An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, there are no sources provided in the article and I could not find any on a quick search. Using the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid means of establishing notability in my opinion. I would highly recommend that this article be merged into Daniel Webster Council or its notability established using reliable sources.-- Captain-tucker ( talk) 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I could see a temporary merge of the topic into Daniel Webster Council, as the previously proposed "top-down" architecture. In time and with enough interest, the camp could be respun off into it's own article. In the mean time it would provide a notable amount of content for the Council in a Camps section. The lack of suitable web presences and available information has been restricting in further research gathering. Skydive23 ( talk) 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)