Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) 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   no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @054  · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp

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

Heavily promotional in tone. No notability. Henry S. Jacobs Camp, the more proper pagename for this article, was merge/redirected a few years ago when Articles for deletion/URJ Camp George concluded that the camp ws not notable. Previous WP:CSD speedy on this article was declined based on Articles for deletion/Camp Yavneh (2nd nomination) as precedent, but that doesn't seem to relate to the blatant ad tone. Also, the Camp George AfD is more closely related to the page at hand and slightly more recent...seems better precedent to me. I was about to WP:CSD this until I saw that declined-speedy in the history, but this article here really is nearly a clone of the better-named one prior to merge. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It should exist as a single line entry in Union for Reform Judaism as do all the other camps. Non-notable camp. Great as a press release, but terrible as a Wikipedia entry. Wperdue (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Comment I see the previous article has been histmerged into this one. So I'd propose moving the whole pile back to the proper name: the "(HSJ)" is against WP:NAMING conventions and replacing it with the redirect per previous consensus on that content. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I histmerged to Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp rather than Henry S. Jacobs Camp because Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp is under AfD and I felt it better not to move it while it is under AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't delete I agree that its tone needs to be adjusted. But an entity that has existed for almost 40 years, affecting hundreds of people... is this not notable? (The question is not facetious. I really am not quite educated on notability, even though I've read "N".) I volunteer to do some clean-up and adjusting to the article, but I won't bother until there is consensus here.--SidP (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * SidP, the problem is that every camp is near and dear to the heart of hundreds or thousands of campers. The previous AfD touched on some of the key ideas related to notability here. I'll toss out some ideas that came from there and other WP:N discussions I've seen. What makes this camp unique or important in the world of camping? What has come from this camp that has had a greater impact than just typical camp experiences? What campers have gone on to become notable in ways related to their experiences here? What is unique and important about the campsite other than just where this camp happens to be located (again looking for lasting/greater relevance)? Where is this camp discussed in mainstream news outlets and third-party resources other than just directories of camps? DMacks (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A search at Wikipedia reference serach finds a few more than passing references to this institution which has obviously played some part in the history of Judaism in the Southern US states. However the article needs trimming back to a NPOV stub as at present it reads as a piece of promotional spam and in fact musch of the content is a straight copyvio of sites such as {http://jacobs.urjcamps.org/about/}. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm on the fence with this. It's a notable search and the article needs to be polished. Tree Karma (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2009 (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.