Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cougar 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cougar Camp

Cougar Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I initially tried to save this article from being a CSD G11/promotional, but as I got to trying to source the article I ran into a brick wall.

The only thing I could verify in the article was that some of the people who are associated with the camp are also associated with a school the camp apparently has some sort of relationship with.

This is pretty much the extent I could verify here. The camp has no mentions on gnews and the only mentions I could find on Google were a few incredibly short database entries and some links to the camp. Nothing here asserts the camp even remotely meets the general notability guidelines or can be verified. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - per references indicating notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No references in the article indicate notability, the two that are there are minor confirmations that two people associated with the camp are employed somewhere else. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is typical of how this user weighs in at Afds to be honest. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable topic - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  As above, a very typical !vote from this person, who rarely provides substance. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• delete per nom, no evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete Independent reliable sources are needed to establish notability, preferably 2 or more. There don't seem to be any for this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I actually find quite a lot of hits on the Google News Archives, but they are all for some sort of sports accelerated training camp. I can't find anything that seems to relate to this camp. - ManicSpider (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems more like an advert than anything else. It is not even a very good advert, because it is not all that clear what Cougar Camp is offering and who it is for. (It is probably 100% clear to people who use these camps, but not to foreigners like me.)--Toddy1 (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability in the article (would have been an ideal speedy delete candidate, none to be found otherwise. A search of "Cougar Camp" plus Maryland turns up the camp's own website, then quickly falls into the other kind of cougar. (Which I note now is neither a standalone article, nor is it mentioned in the target of the redir, but that is outside the scope of this discussion). Tarc (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (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.