Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ramah (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus favors keeping all articles in question.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Camp Ramah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As far as I can tell, this is an unnotable summer camp. It's tone is promotional, and without the significant coverage in reliable sources, its impossible to rewrite Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * Strong Keep. Ramah is a notable religious/cultural institution of the Conservative Movement that has been operating since the 1950s. The material can be edited to remove the advertising tone. It is not a lost cause at all. Much has been written about these camps, and there are countless alumni and staff members who have gone on to become leaders and important figures in the Jewish community.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (all). Nom appears to be confusing his personal view (which I differ with) as to whether the article is promotional with appropriate AfD rationale.  Even if it were promotional, that would not be a proper AfD rationale.  It is clearly notable, as reflected in RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the appropriate AfD rationale is, as mentioned, notability, and a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, your view -- which I disagree with -- that it is promotional is wholly irrelevant to an AfD discussion. The fact that you raise it suggests that it played a part in your thinking.   It has no part in this discussion.  As to RS coverage, it is clearly there, evidencing notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? Half the references in the Camp Ramah article are from Ramah websites - not relaible by any stretch. Also, the Camp Ramah in the Berkshires article got deleted at its last AfD (link above), and has been recreated still without any decent refs. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan -- you are required to do a wp:before search before nominating an article for AfD. Have you done so?  If so, how did you miss the 1,150 gnews hits and 2,160 gbooks hits and 260 gscholar hits?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did, and from what I could see, and barring only a couple of exceptions, it was a stack of trivial mentions. If consensus disagrees with me, then fine, however I'm not one to answer everyones !vote with a counter-statement. I've followed the correct procedures, I think the articles should be deleted. I definitely don't need to carry on answering accusations of bad-faith, which are unfounded. That is all. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you did not find in those 3,500 entries sufficient RS support for notability. I think think a withdrawal of the nomination is in order.  Also, fyi, you directed the readers (in all but the Camp Ramah AfD) to the first AfD that had already been closed as a keep.  I've addressed that error.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I semi-disagree with Nom on their points. Quite obviously the tone of these articles is one of the things which makes them poorly-written. However, articles in need of improvement are not automatically candidates for deletion. Furthermore, these articles also lack citations as is pointed out by Nom. A quick search on Google Scholar will reveal that Camp Ramah is quite notable in several areas of academic research because of their large population and impact over time. I thank Nom for taking the time to identify problems with this article series and invite Nom to join the community in an effort to remedy the issues. Since I believe that none of these issues are grounds for deletion (instead, they are a call to arms!), I must vote keep. --yonkeltron (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles provide adequate references from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Camp Ramah only, delete the rest - there are sufficient independent reliable sources to sustain an article about the camp/franchise but there do not appear to be reliable sources to sustain articles on the individual camps. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all except Camp Ramah per Cow Of Pain. There is no need for a separate article on each individual camp.  Certainly, a list of such camps can be included in the main article, and maybe an extra sentence or two if that particular camp has some unique feature.  Otherwise, the individual camp articles are going to be nearly identical, and mostly redundant to the main article.  The franchise is notable, but the individual camps fail WP:GNG.  Note that previous AfD's for individual camps have resulted in deletion, and the articles have been (inappropriately) recreated since.    Snotty Wong   spill the beans 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Camp Ramah Separate small, insignificant articles could be merged to create a more comprehensive article. Little (if any) coverage as separate entities, but sufficient notability as a whole.  Grsz 11  23:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all and relist separately for a specific analysis. The parent Camp Ramah is clearly notable as attested by its multitude of sources.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all to Camp Ramah and cleanup per argument by Are You The Cow Of Pain?.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Alansohn. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All because this nomination, that seeks to destroy articles that collectively fulfill both WP:NOTABLE, that do not violate WP:NOR, and that comply fully with WP:NPOV and adequate WP:CITE are an entire well-established network of Jewish summer camps, that would in effect wipe out and disable the entire Category:Camp Ramah that would require that this category be now placed up for deletion at WP:CFD as well (so this is in effect not a good faith nomination that is defective as it stands), which in turn this is a sub-category of Category:Jewish summer camps, that in turn are (sub-)sub-categories of both Category:Jewish educational organizations and Category:Jewish youth organizations, that in turn are sub-sub-categories of the parent categories Category:Jewish organizations and Category:Jewish education and much more in this category field. So the nomination simply creates a gaping hole and opens the door that every last Jewish summer camp's article will face deletion, that then defeats the purpose of writing a serious and comprehensive encyclopedia. Much work has gone into creating and building up these important articles over the years that are a pillar of Jewish education in North America and beyond. The articles may need some work, and perhaps start from some standard promotional material, but that does not make them hopeless as the nominator falsely alleges, since that's is not much different to tens of thousands of articles all over that have the same starting points but over time develop into key components of a much larger whole that many not familiar with this field of Jewish education often cannot fathom. The nominator is requested to withdraw this damaging, sweeping and defective AfD that could cause much harm and undo much work that has gone into these articles over many years. Perhaps staring a centralized discussion at WP:TALKJUDAISM about how to improve the articles would be a better, more productive and incremental, and less provocative place to start. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, please pile on some more accusations of skullduggery and evil-doing! Unfounded accusations are always so productive! Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How much work, really? The longest of these, Camp Ramah in Canada is entirely unsourced and promotional in nature, and the others aren't more than 1500 word stubs that can easily be integrated into the main article to strengthen it. But when all else fails, cry ethnic foul.  Grsz 11  14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is curious that Grsz is again the subject of the ethnic foul accusation.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User Are You The Cow Of Pain? is requested to withdraw his false allegations which do not address the facts and arguments in this discussion or about its topics, but merely resorts to debasing this discussion, there was never anything said about "skullduggery and evil-doing" that are just red herrings here. And User Grsz11 is reminded that many WP articles qualify and exist as WP:STUBS, it's kosher on WP, and then they develop over time. Please note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IZAK, it doesn't matter if the deletion of these articles will prompt the deletion of supporting categories. That is not a reason to keep an article.  SeeWP:PLEASEDONT (i.e. "People worked hard on these articles" is not a valid rationale).  Just because someone spent a lot of time creating articles on non-notable subjects and created a bunch of categories to put them in is no reason to keep them.  The only reason to keep the articles on the individual camps, in my opinion, would be if we could find multiple, independent reliable sources which discuss the individual camps in a non-trivial way, per WP:GNG.  So, instead of writing a long whine about the perceived collateral damage that deleting these articles would cause, go and find some sources.    Snotty Wong   communicate 01:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for the snotty use of the phrase "whine", unless one seeks to distract from the core issue. As most of the commentators have indicated, there is in fact among the 3,500 indicated newspaper articles, books, and scholarly articles sufficient treatment of the camps in a non trivial way to meet wp's notability requirements.  Just because Snotty has different views, whether or not he has read the 3,500, is no reason for him to disagree with the majority by using snotty terminology to attack them.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Snottywong: There is no need to give me or anyone tasks. It's ok to ask for more citations, but it's definitely not ok to give "jobs" to any users in the middle of any AfD. Sure, there are times when I have spent time improving articles, but there are also times when I nominate articles for deletion, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments that are put forth here at this time and place. In any case, you are wrong, because as a number of users are making it very clear to those not that familiar with this topic and phenomenon that the articles are about WP:NOTABLE subjects individually, and that certainly the whole is even greater than the sum of the parts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When a nom makes such a bad nomination as this one of a religious camp (he has garnered zero support,for example, for his sentinel deletion proposal, in light of the thousands of articles about the camp), and the nom is an editor who says that he "believes religion is harmful to society", it is reasonable to assume that the nom was telling the truth about his views on religion. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your accusations of bad faith are way out of line. The articles were in a shabby state with serious question marks over their notability. While there is support for keeping the main article, there is also support for merging the rest. Mu nomination was sound, and based on policy. Please remain civil instead of bandying about accusations. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. It's a perfectly legitimate nomination and has gained support to merge the smaller (and incredibly repetitive) articles. Differnt view do not mean wrong views, some people around here just don't get that. If you're accusing him of acting in bad faith because of his dislike for religion, others are just as likely to recognize and comment on your particularly point of view regarding this. Not everybody who disagrees with you is making a religious or ethnic attack, and it's about time to realize that.  Grsz 11  11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everyone nominates articles with literally (as pointed out above) thousands of articles and books on it, claiming non-notablity, when in fact (as DGG pointed out) it is not only notable but famous, garner zero support for the primary nomination (let alone no consensus for merging), and trumpets the fact that they consider religion -- as he puts it -- to be "harmful to society" as he seeks to delete articles with dozens of refs and potential refs ... as he fails to nominate secular camps that are totally devoid of such evidence of notability. That's rather unique, though I credit him for in good faith honestly trumpeting his belief as to the danger of religion (a view raised by him of his own accord; not by others) as he seeks to make the mention of Jewish camps Judenfrei, while leaving mention of secular camps intact.  --Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What tosh - the nomination had nothing to do with the fact that its a religion-based article. While you were looking at my userpage you should have also looked at my contributions, where you'd have seen that barely any of my edits are on religious articles. The way I came across this article is by hitting "random article", whereupon I came across an article that was in my view worthy of deletion. You're on very dodgy ground claiming that I go around making nominations because I don't believe in the supernatural. It's akin to saying that because I sometimes nominate an album for deletion it must be because I hate music. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. While a lot of references have been added, I urge contributors to this discussion to look at them for quality. At least 10 of the references are to Ramah's own website(s). Two are deadlinks. At least one is a paid-for listing (the NYT one). I won't remove them myself, but someone should. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan -- you would do better looking at the thousands of other articles/books that could serve as references, and add them. Note:  we judge at AfDs the refs that can be added to articles as well as those that are in them, not solely the refs that are in them.  Furthermore, there is no reason to delete references to Ramah's own websites.  And it is not appropriate to delete deadlinks -- it is in fact inappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge all pages to one "Camp Ramah". The camp is definitely notable and should have an article.  It does not need 12 articles. Joe407 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Geewhiz and Epeefleche. --Hmbr (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. Innovative educational programs of the Conservative movement are often tested at camp Rama, as in the case of the Melton Bible Program,which was developed and tested in Camp Rama in the Berkshires in the late 1970's.9/15/2010 2:00 p.m. (user RitaRaff) — RitaRiff (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Camp Ramah and get rid of the others. Roscelese (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Camp Ramah. It seems to be notable, but the main article reads like a pamphlet for the camp. If any of the articles are to be kept, they will need to be severly rewritten. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on quick glance. Some of the unseen spinoffs might need merging. Notability established per refs, the issue is promotion (add template?) and weight, not deletion. JJB 16:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The main article--consider a change of name to Ramah Camping Movement, which is the overall name on their website  and serves to distinguish the network from the individual camps. The network of camps is not merely notable, but famous; nominating it together with the individual camps shows a failure to understand the articles.  As for the individual camps, probably the material can be merged--they are parallel, but not identical, and some of the material can perhaps better be treated together to avoid duplication.  But it is possible that some have sufficient sourcing to be kept individually, and they need to be individually considered:  the articles are of different strengths and degrees of sourcing--and extent of promotionalism.    DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (all) The articles as they are now have sufficient sourcing and inherent notability.  Individual camps are very like individual schools, the ones that last m a few years and are sizable become notable, as the sourcing here demonstrates.AMuseo (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What sourcing? All of the sources discuss Camp Ramah in general, not any one individual camp in particular.    Snotty Wong   gab 13:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to the articles and clicked through on the sources, finding many articles on individual camps.AMuseo (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all per Geewhiz. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (all). Well sourced article, clearly meets WP:GNG. Marokwitz (talk) 05:43, 20 September 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.