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 no consensus‎. No editors except the nominator provided substantial support for deleting, while the two editors supporting keeping did not respond to the nom's doubt about the sources provided. With one delete comment from a very new editor and one neutral vote, the most accurate description of the result of this discussion is NC. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy ( talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Arctic Basecamp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Independent coverage of the organization is extremely fleeting, with virtually no coverage outside of unbylined pieces that serve as vehicles for the organization's founders and supporters to talk about themselves (e.g. [1], [2]). Searching online lead me to more of the same kind of uncritical, fleeting coverage. Searching on Scholar, I found brief critical coverage in a source of dubious reliability ( [3]) and articles by individuals affiliated with the organization, but nothing that simultaneously meets the criteria of independence and significance. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree for deletion. Coverage is not significant and it is difficult to understand tangible activities of this organization apart from self-promotion. Eagle.Jeff ( talk) 06:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:47, 30 October 2023 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus‎. No editors except the nominator provided substantial support for deleting, while the two editors supporting keeping did not respond to the nom's doubt about the sources provided. With one delete comment from a very new editor and one neutral vote, the most accurate description of the result of this discussion is NC. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy ( talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Arctic Basecamp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Independent coverage of the organization is extremely fleeting, with virtually no coverage outside of unbylined pieces that serve as vehicles for the organization's founders and supporters to talk about themselves (e.g. [1], [2]). Searching online lead me to more of the same kind of uncritical, fleeting coverage. Searching on Scholar, I found brief critical coverage in a source of dubious reliability ( [3]) and articles by individuals affiliated with the organization, but nothing that simultaneously meets the criteria of independence and significance. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree for deletion. Coverage is not significant and it is difficult to understand tangible activities of this organization apart from self-promotion. Eagle.Jeff ( talk) 06:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:47, 30 October 2023 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook