Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Camp[edit]

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

No legitimate sources (three of them are just links to places related to this camp and one is a YouTube video). I did a Google search and not many articles written on this camp. Andise1 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent addition of independent reliable sources. bd2412 T 03:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Woodward_Camp, I am relisting this for further comment on the sources presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG as per available sources about the topic. See also WP:NEXIST: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [first source provided by WikiOriginal-9 above provides substantial coverage. This seems like it should not have been nominated for deletion. --do ncr am 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I never care about state of sourcing, changed vote per WO-9's source grab. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:36, 22 August 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.