Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Raymond (BSA)


 * 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 Merge to Scouting in Arizona; action complete. JERRY talk contribs 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Camp Raymond (BSA)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Camping ground with no exceptional notability. Article lacks third-party references. Prod contested by the article creator: "This page is similar to all the other Boy Scout camp pages out there, and contributes to the Scouting in Arizona page." Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * merge to Scouting in Arizona, there is a home for the information. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep, and the majority of the camp articles are against established Scouting WikiProject guidelines. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "the majority of the camp articles are against established Scouting WikiProject guidelines. " is not exactly true. See Gadget's links below. --evrik (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarify The Scouting and Wikipedia guidelines are to expand in a top down manner, establishing notability at each level. It is difficult to establish that Camp Raymond is notable when its parent Grand Canyon Council does not have an article.  This should not be construed that if Grand Canyon Council has an article, then Camp Raymond can have an article, as each must establish notability on their own merits.  There is nothing in this article that establishes Camp Raymond's notability on a national or even regional level.  The article does not answer the big question- what makes Camp Raymond different from every other Scout camp? --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * rant If we could get editors to clean up the cluttered by state articles, we could have good council level articles that would include the OA lodge and the council camps. Instead we get camp and lodge articles that I end up chopping all the material that is copied from some website.  It leaves a crappy article and I don't like doing that.  There are 308 BSA councils, about the same for lodges and 400-500 council camps.  Add in the Girl Scouts (where we are really weak) and that is 1500-2000 articles just for the U.S.  With our active editors, we can barely keep ahead of vandalism and other weird drive-by edits.  So, we end up with camp articles about special songs, mascots, building colors and toilets and nothing about the programs offered that make the camp unique.  But, we've been here before and I don't expect any changes.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete entirely. (I originally PRODded this article.) The camp is not notable on its own. A bullet point in Scouting in Arizona already exists. Expand that paragraph a little, then delete/redirect this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * merge to Scouting in Arizona; see WP:SCOUTMOS for the Scouting projects guidelines on this; these are derived from Notability (organizations and companies). --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is a stub and should be allowed the opportunity to grow. --evrik (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability on its own.  Also this is more then a stub but that does not affect notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThe camp by itself is notable. The information adds to wikipedia. If anything, the article Grand Canyon Council should be created and the information added to that. --evrik (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * merge per Gadget850. It is quite true we don't have enough scouting editors to keep the state/council/lodge articles in good order--not to mention trying to follow our own guidelines. Therefore, we need to focus on what we might reasonably handle, which is quality high level articles first, rather than all this constant fuss over every camp and lodge. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the camp per above. Failing that, then delete.  Nothing in the article suggests notability of the camp and giving the article an opportunity to grow is not a reason to keep.  Montco (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why stub articles exist. --evrik (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the camp per above.-Phips (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, if not Keep As I belive with any article, if you can find stuff for it, it can become useful, but if there is no hope for it, then at least merge. Whammies Were Here 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the discussion has been continued I want to repeat my support for keepin git as a stub. --evrik (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to ADMINS: do NOT count this as a separate vote, this is a previous voter restating his opinion for some reason. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2008 (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.