Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Jaycee

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. Kurykh (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Jaycee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local organization that fails the WP:AUD test of notability (organizations and companies). Searches of the usual Google types, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest did not return any significant coverage in independent reliable sources more than ten miles from the camp. (Note that there are camps of the same name elsewhere, such as New Jersey and Virginia, operated by other organizations.) --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete You look at all those ref's and say, "oooo, notable," right? Only not. There is actually no assertion of significance in the article, and much of the content is promotional. There are several dead links that all point to the same source. There are sources connected to the subject, and a couple of local "human interest story" sources. Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 21:18, 4 May 2017 (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.