Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Pioneer


 * 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/No consensus to delete Merge proposals can be talked to talk page of article as no consensus is there for deletion-- JForget 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Camp Pioneer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions.   —Katr67 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While many of the references provided do appear to be trivial (unfortunately, it's hard to check as there are no links), at least two (the last two, specifically) of them do appear to mention the camp in some detail, which barely meets WP:N. However, I don't see that there has been much effort into improving the article, and noting that nominator's contributions of late, I would oppose deletion for now. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the sources alone would establish notability (most are beyond trivial, but not substantial), but in the aggregate there is enough coverage to establish the notability of the camp. Aboutmovies 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * weak Keep: I googled to find some notability, but didn't find anything in the "earthshaking" category.  However, there are hundreds of references to people who have attended or worked at the camp, all without incident.  I have a feeling it's suffering from little documentation rather than lack of inherent notability.  —EncMstr 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect. General AfD trend is that camps are generally not notable unless there is something specifically notable about this specific one. Lots of cited details about it don't attest to notability about it. Various camp lore, activities, etc don't make it notable. "Some relative of Washington slept here" notability doesn't cut it for me. Add a few details about the site to whatever Council runs it and redirect to that page. DMacks 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Scouting in Oregon and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * MergeRlevse 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Oregon as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Oregon article. Also, stub articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. --evrik (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Article was a bad faith nomination. Mike6271 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability.  As with most of these camps, they lack notability.  At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, they are for notable articles that need more material. Vegaswikian 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Notability seems to be a matter of opinion. What is notable to one may not be notable to another. This article is well researched, written and referenced. Dincher 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment. Others (including myself) have asserted that this article is not worthy—not just slapping on a "delete per nom", but specific concerns to support deletion—so even if the ball got rolling in the wrong way, it's now rolling and there are others who could just as well have pushed it. DMacks 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "...so even if the ball got rolling in the wrong way, it's now rolling and there are others who could just as well have pushed it." This isn't Bush v. Gore, and we don't have to accept decisions made in bad faith. Camp Minsi was an article about a camp in Pennsylvania. The nominator listed seven camps for deletion, six from PA. The nominator was a frequent contributor to the Camp Minsi article. Seems like a prima facie case of not "Acting in Good Faith." We don't have to accept that. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I could just as well ignore the nom we have, and might well have nom'ed it myself. Let's discuss the merits of the article in its own right. If it can stand on its own merits, it doesn't matter how or who got us to this AfD discussion. If it isn't notable, then it is suitable for deletion regardless of who (or why) someone got off his duff to do the nom, and eventually someone might wake up and speak up and say "this looks deletable, let's discuss it". DMacks 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you wouldn't have nominated it, would you? It shouldn't be here in the first place. Discussion: It is notable on its own, and has had an impact on the lives of many people. It fits in with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and it passes the google test. --evrik (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'd known about it, quite possibly actually. Lots of google hits can support the details but still have it be an article about something not worthy for its own article. According to the primary guideline for notability: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". and However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. Much of the information is not encyclopediac (even though it might be supported by reliable sources). Splitting a long article into parts is only recommended if there's lots of worthy content to add for those parts. DMacks 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't know about it, and can't accurately say what you would have done if you'd come across it. Do you think about deleting all short articles?. It is notable (here is a relaiabe souce), passes the google test and would not be here if not for a bad faith action by another editor. --evrik (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindent) That source is reliable, but it only supports that this place exists and where it is—doesn't seem more than "merely trivial coverage" primary non-notability item. DMacks 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It passes the google test for notbaility, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidleines about when an article can be split out. --evrik (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.


 * First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.


 * Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.


 * It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.


 * Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please note that per one merge proponents comments, the arguement to "incubate" is not a relevant option based on what merges are for. Merges are for: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded." So please vote to delete or keep if that is why you want it merged, otherwise this is simply a stub needing expansion, and we don't delete stubs for being stubs. Aboutmovies 18:10, 24 October 2007 (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.