Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Glacier 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Union Glacier Camp[edit]

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

Delete. Unremarkable location used by an unremarkable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the claim only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica can be verified, then I'd say the location is distinctly notable indeed. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the Patriot Hills was also the only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they moved from one location to the other. Your point? And as Antarctic base camps, they should be inherently notable. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point here: absolutely nothing is "inherently notable". Notability is a portmanteau of concepts related to verifiability, neutrality and sourcing; something which has no independent sources is not notable however interesting it might be. As an example, some believe all schools are inherently notable, but I went to one (state funded) school about which there is not one single available online source - it was open for only about ten years and closed with virtually no coverage. I can't even verify the spelling! So, let's not get carried away by what sounds notable, instead look at the actual objective evidence for notability, which probably does exist in this case. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Patriot Hills operations have moved to Union Glacier Camp. Patriot Hills article has been well used for over 3 years and was pertinent. Patriot Hills (now Union Glacier Camp) is the only private base in Antarctica http://www.adventure-network.com/subpage.asp?navid=2&id=9 The base is reconized by SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) and the Australian Antarctic Division http://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/mapcat/display_map.cfm?map_id=13400. BBC News article mentioning Union Glacier http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11384454 User:Icetent Original author. 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable place well-covered in reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Patriot Hills as this appears to be a single subject. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Patriot Hills which is also currently at AfD. Perhaps Antarctic settlements or Settlements in Antarctica would be an appropriate merge target. SnottyWong ^speak 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is one of the few locations on Antarctica with a yearlong or seasonal human presence in a permanent or semipermanent camp. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of only a few outposts of mankind on the remotest continent on earth, covered in third-party sources. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has third party sources... its the only camp on the continant Arskwad (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought it was a bit short on third party sources so I added one. More would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2010 (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.