Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda


 * 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 of the debate was to relist. See Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Camp Avoda
This article is basically an advertisement for a non-notable summer camp in Massachusets. It has no qualifying information apart from advertising copy.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NN, WP:RS seems like an ad for a business. To qualify, it would have to appear to be written as a neutral description by an unbiased observer, with citations in news media etc. as to why it is notable. Crum375 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Crazynas 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. In addition - death to adspeak!
 * Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nce Ong 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well the average run of the mill summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree the article needs to be rewritten so as to not read as a brochure, but this is a boys' camp that's existed for 80 years. --Leifern 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Campaign to delete all articles linked to one religion rubs me the wrong way. Why has the nom not indicated that this article previously survived AfD?. Camps should be covered here. -- JJay 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. -- M P er el ( talk 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MPerel. Pecher Talk 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment article sounds like an ad. Rewrite it and I'll vote to keep. Homey 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Leifern and MPerel. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it.  Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.)  But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll vote keep due to the camp's venerability but I disagree with the suggestions that the nominator was on some sort of anti-Semitic rampage. A) he's part Jewish b) it seems he was starting out cleaning out stubs and happened to be doing so in one of the Jewish subcats. He may have overreacted to IZAK's taking him to task and nominated some articles that do not merit deletion but this is quite different from being anti-Semitic.Homey 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever the nom's motivations, I would advise him to read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point- because that's how it looks when this many noms on the same subject come in at the same time. -- JJay 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To accuse someone of disruption to make a point, you will first have show the disruption and then you will have to show the point. Go ahead? Kim Bruning 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The point completely escapes me. The distruption has been fairly obvious. -- JJay 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, you cannot show that the nescesary conditions for a WP:POINT violation have been met. While we could discuss the merits of an accusation of disruption, that's now moot. Kim Bruning 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:14, 22 May 2006 (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.