Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gindling Hilltop Camp


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gindling Hilltop Camp

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this is a long article, it doesn't have a single source. But that's not for lack of trying. In addition to placing tags on the article and posting reqeusts on the talk page, I've also tried to contact individual editors and emailed the directors. But even after all of that there's still nothing. The camp seems to regard the article as their private repository for camp lore and traditions, though I've suggested repeatedly that they move the content to their own website. In the Google world, I can't find anything more than passing mentions in listings of summer camps. The only thing that's verifiable is its existence and address. How can it be notable if it's unverifiable? I give up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but cut out everything that can't be sourced, not the ideal solution but the camp does appear notable and something needs to be done about the issues raised by . I found some coverage: a few paragraphs in this article, this article (Pay per view though), this (somewhat short) article and many more minor mentions, see Google News. Icewedge (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I tried cutting it down once, but it was immediatwly reverted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article survives the AfD (which I suspect it will) I will help with the trimming of the article. Icewedge (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are, as Icewedge mentions, quite a few Google News results, and a seemingly self-published pamphlet from 1975 which may or may not be useful. The camp appears to be notable. The persistent reverts by presumed camp affiliates are, of course, problematic, but that can (hopefully) be addressed by calling the attention of more editors to the article, rather than deleting the article completely.--Fullobeans (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The camp appears notable enough, most likely due to its location among the well-to-do Southern California community and the inherent notability derived from high-profile members and supporters. The article will have to be monitored to keep the campers from "owning" the article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:40, 4 December 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.