Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk Mountain 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawk Mountain Camp

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

The notability of the camp is in question.


 * Keep: Per Wikipedia's Historical Notability Guideline: Notability/Historical/Arguments. This seems pretty clear cut. Jheiv (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you please be more specific about the section that you feel applies? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would say that the article meets Notability_(Geographic_locations) proposed standards #1 and #3, and I would suggest editors review: Obscure content isn't harmful and  Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known.  Jheiv (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * comment This was originally listed with Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 but separated by Jheiv. See that AfD for the original deletion rationale and !votes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: AfDs are not closed by votes but rather that a consensus has been reached. Jheiv (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why Ed used the term "!vote" (i.e. not a vote) which is generally used to refer to what you say. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I see nothing in Notability/Historical/Arguments that indicates this article should be kept. I see no assertion of notability in the article, either from an historical standpoint or a modern one.  There seems to be only one real third party source consisting of two articles in the same paper, which is not enough according to the notability guidelines.  I see no reason to make an exception in this case regarding the notability guidelines.  Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm really concerned all about the way some of the editors handle the question of notability. Quoting Notability/Historical/Arguments:
 * Obscure content isn't harmful


 * Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.
 * I encourage editors to embrace a spirit of inclusiveness that Wikipedia otherwise and elsewhere embodies. Jheiv (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My reason for supporting deletion is not because it is obscure. The reason is because the article indicates nothing about the site that is notable.  This article consists of basically a description of the site, and a description of what it is used for.  Nothing notable happens there, or has happened there, and the fact that it is a real place does not mean it is notable.  If some evidence of notability can be provided, I would happily change my vote to keep, but as it is, the fact that obscure content isn't harmful is not a reason to keep non-notable content.  Since this does not fit within the other criteria of wikipedia, namely the notability criteria, there is no reason to keep this article.  Theseeker4 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is unclear by the guideline I just quoted. The article seems to be verifiable (although I admit it could use some more references, but that's what the fact tag is for, not AfD.)  If it is, in fact, not notable in your opinion, what is the harm in keeping the page?  As long as all the claims in the article are verifiable then this addition to Wikipedia should be left.  Further, given the Notability_(Geographic_locations) proposed guidelines, I'm not sure someone can honestly say that this article should not be included in Wikipedia.Jheiv (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that Notability_(Geographic_locations) even applies here. That proposed guideline was intended to deal with the question of whether every village or hamlet should have an article. It was never intended to deal with Scout camps. If it does allow Scout camps, then it would allow articles on all individual houses. This is a proposed guideline and if the folks working on it hear about the suggestion to apply it here to a Scout camp, I suspect they would change the wording to exclude them and make it clear it is about places with a population. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Jheiv What you are saying is not at all unclear. However, I disagree with your assertion that anything that is verifiable should be kept.  The guideline you quoted is basically saying err on the side of "it is obscure but notable" if there is a question.  In this case, there is no question, there is nothing about this location that asserts notability.  Regarding Notability_(Geographic_locations), first it is a series of three distinct proposals, contradictory to one another, none of which are even at the level of consensus, let alone policy.  Number three does not apply here since there is no permanent population; it is a camp, not a town.  Number one is so broad, and has so many arguments against it in the discussion page of the proposals that I reject it (yes, my opinion, but I am discussing why I don't think this article should be here).  A scout camp needs some assertion of notability; the fact that we can verify that it exists is not enough.  If that were the case, and notability really doesn't matter at all as to whether to keep or delete articles (which is contrary to consensus as well as pages and pages of Wikipedia guidelines) then we need to un-delete the thousands of non-notable bands and singers, etc. that have been deleted based on the notability criteria.  Theseeker4 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of merit in your response -- they are points well-taken. Thanks.Jheiv (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I gave my opinion at Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1, and will not repeat it here. It is unfortunate that this AfD has been started separately as the camp and troop are closely related. In my view neither are notable, but if minimal notability is demonstrated this camp article should be merged into the troop article. Before merging much of it should be removed as advertising and other non-important material. As Ed said on the Troop AfD discussion, the place for these articles in ScoutWiki which actually encourages articles on Troops and camps. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In the absence of something remarkable and soundly sourced, a camp for an individual troop is not possibly notable. The problem of how to deal with content of such limited interest is a real one, and is probably best solved by auxiliary wiki of some sort. (I can see it done by having different levels in Wikipedia, but not at our present state of development--we have enough problem dealing with one set of standards.)DGG (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An older version of this article was copied over to ScoutWiki; if the decision is to delete, I will copy the newer version over. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Already did that. I don't want you befouling my article anymore than you already have.Jmpenzone (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not your article. See WP:OWN. You are not understanding how wikipedia works. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * delete and salt, if possible merge any notable content into appropriate council or state article. These articles will continue to be problematic and contentious, and their existence runs counter to the dozens of nn local articles that have already been deleted over Wiki history. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and add a pinch of WP:SALT this is unquestionably non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article does not meet general notability guidelines in any way. We then have arguments based upon Notability_(Geographic_locations) #1 and #3 and Notability/Historical/Arguments. "Geographic locations" is a proposed guideline, so I'm not heavily swayed by it to begin with. That said, #1 (actually OPTION 1, one of several propsed guidelines) aims to create a specific exception to general notability; if accepted, we might apply it here. OPTION 2 would fail this article. OPTION 3 aims to cover "any populated place" which I don't see as coving this camp any more than it covers my uncle's farm. (A camp is a single piece of property with one owner, very unlike the towns, villages and hamlets I think this option has in mind.) Further, I don't see the "cited population estimate or range" OPTION 3 would demand. "Obscure content isn't harmful" is merely an essay, and not particularly convincing (IMO) in this case. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WOW!!!! The deletionists return. You guys really have it in for any content you don't like. I'll move it to Scoutwiki. (Where I know you think it belongs, right.) Hope you're happy FJB's!!!!Jmpenzone (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What deletionists? At least one hardcore inclusionist (DDG) has !voted against this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete see also related AfD Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; I don't believe in salting unless necessary, but it is deletable. The only sources seem to be general land records and small newspaper articles, and a 50 year old camp that's 18 acres just doesn't scream hidden sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 5 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.