Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ozark


 * 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   no consensus, at least not for deletion. I recommend further discussion on Talk:Pat Ankenman to establish consensus as whether or not to merge to the Pat Ankenman article. –MuZemike 22:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Camp Ozark

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Camp Ozark is not a notable orgainization Thad dean (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Thad dean (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: This organization does seem to have had at least one notable incident, which the AfD nominator tried to edit out of the article, without explanation,twice, before trying to AfD the entire article. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable outside that one incident; only sources found online were trivial or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to fail WP:ORG with sources found so far. Fæ (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. One piece of news coverage does not make the camp itself notable. Needs far more sourcing. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep At the very least, merge the relevant bits to the Pat Ankenman article. A 60 year old summer camp is very likely notable in various ways including for the death, being owned by a pro player, and other events and issues that have taken place involving it. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I second the keep assertion as the camp has at least one notable thing about it, and it sounds like from Freakshownerd that perhaps there is more than one notable thing. Furthermore, at least one person advocating delete was the person trying to block delete the unpleasant information about the death.  Let's keep in mind that it appears that the move to delete occurred after a failure to eliminate unpleasant information about the camp.  classactdynamo (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is true I tried to delete the "unpleasant information." When unsuccessful, I then  nominated this entry for deletion.  However, I am confused by the discussion so far.  My primary concern is this: two contributors seem to consider my attempt at section deletion to be a major criteria upon which their "keep" opinion was based.  These contributors seem to to be ignoring the pertinent question as to whether or not Camp Ozark, as an organization, is notable enough to merit an entry, and their verdict of "keep" comes across as merely vindictive or retributive.  Perhaps some additional clarification as to why or how Camp Ozark meets the standards of notability is merited?Thad dean (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thad dean, please offer an actual explanation as to why you tried to delete unpleasant information, then after failing tried to just delete the article. You admit you did that but then try to change the subject.  The discussion of the notability of this article is separate from the discussion of your motivations.  You must understand that there is an issue if someone with an interest in blocking unpleasant information simply tries to delete an article to hide the information.  It is not vindictiveness.  I simply was pointing out that this all started because of someone whose actions suggest motivations beyond questioning the notability of the article.    classactdynamo (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stub and merge I think that this is a good candidate for WP:FAILN's suggestion about merging articles. As a local business, I'd suggest merging it into Mount Ida, Arkansas (the standard recommendation by WP:ORG), but I'm open to other options.  If you consider notability as the process of figuring out how much you could say if you know nothing except what you find in independent reliable sources -- well, I think the entire article would be reduced to maybe three sentences about WP:ONEEVENT.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * classactdynamo, I appreciate your questions. Having an interest in summer camps in general, I was surprised to see that Camp Ozark, a summer camp with which I am familiar, had an entry in Wikipedia. My surprise stems from the fact that there are larger, more notable summer camps, some of whom have experienced similar tragedies or controversies, not listed.  My initial thought after reading the article was that the paragraph regarding Schubert was misplaced at best, unnecessary at worst. So I attempted to deleted it. However, after further consideration and research, I reached the conclusion, based on the fact that larger, more notable summer camps are not listed in Wikipedia (appropriately so, in my opinion), that Camp Ozark would be a suitable candidate to propose for deletion.  Thus, here we are.  As a novice Wikipedia editor, I have without doubt gone about things clumsily, and you have my apologies for that.  Though you may question my motivation, and perhaps even my character, my reason for proposing Camp Ozark for deletion boils down to the fact that there are larger and more notable summer camps not included in Wikipedia.  And I think the exclusion of these summer camps is appropriate.  Small businesses such as these just don't appear to reach the level of notability as I read it (WP:ORG).Thad dean (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, As this is a volunteer organization, sometimes articles are not written in order of importance, and the existence, or lack thereof, of another article is neither reason to keep, nor to delete this article. Please also see Other stuff exists, and realize that the inverse is also true. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  04:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, Noted, and agreed, thank you for your feedback. As I've done more research, I've become very aware of the truth of your point. That is why my core argument in favor of deletion is that Camp Ozark simply does not meet WP standards of notability (other problems with the article have been noted previously, see article). That said, my question then becomes whether it is best to just accept that there are many, many organizations (in this case, summer camps) that don't appear to meet WP standards of notability (WP:ORG) yet still exist as entries in WP, and not worry about it, or should I, as a novice editor, try to improve content? I guess I'm looking at this particular effort as a sort of "test case" as to whether or not WP standards, like WP:ORG, actually have "weight" or not, and if so, if I truly understand them.  So far, I have yet to hear anyone suggest Camp Ozark actually MEETS the standards of notability for an organization as defined by WP; in fact, what appear to be three very experienced editors (i.e. Fæ, Alzarian16 and Ten Pound Hammer) all think it fails on the merits of notability, which is the only real issue I have (I know their opinion isn't a valid reason to delete, but it does impact how I am learning about the process).  What I'm most interested in at this point is a valid argument in favor of keeping the article based on the fact that Camp Ozark is indeed a notable organization as defined by WP.  If it can't be shown to be notable according to WP:ORG, why should it remain?  Thank you for your patience.Thad dean (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I tried to clean up this page by reformatting one of my earlier comments and deleting a duplicitous paragraph posted by classactdynamo. No content was removed.Thad dean (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you mean 'duplicate' there... If not, it should have Peridon (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm in a bit of a quandary about this one. Not much indication of notability outside the Schubert incident. A somewhat 'written by' tone throughout most of the article rather than the 'written about' that we prefer. And then an attempt to remove the nasty bit.... Followed by an attempt to get the article deleted when that failed. While I don't think the article is in compliance with the standards for notability, I am intrigued. It is unusual for a single purpose account to be aware of the AfD procedures Someone must really want this section article gone. Peridon (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2010 (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.