Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland)

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

Non-notable, regional event with only 300 participants. jergen (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This event is notable, mainly to mark the 100 years since the first Scout Camp after Scouting started in the UK. It is now sourced. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event - marked the centenary of the birth of Scouts and an crucial point in history. Also brought about a continuing development model for allowing access to activities - must be recorded! -- Porlhews    (Discussion)  00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event - reasons given on talk page. NOT regional - INTERNATIONAL.  Marking centenary of First Scout Camp.  Attended by members of WOSM and WFIS.  Attended by members of both main Scout associations in the UK.  Was externally sourced prior to deletion demand.  Number of participants surely not relevant unless Jergen is proposing we delete Brownsea and Carr Edge 1907 as well? (Apologies for sarcasm...) DiverScout (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sole for the number of participants, the Camps on Brownsea 1907 and in Carr Edge 1908 would not be notable; they are notable because of their historical impact - but I do not see the historical dimension of this event. Camps with three hundred participants are organized every weekend through the world (I attended three of that size during the last three weeks), participants from different organizations are not that particular outside the UK, regional media coverage is normal... So what? This was a small camp with half the expected participants, mainly from the region, and it had no impact on the British Scout movement. If it were the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA, it could gaine historical significance; but this can not be judged right now. --jergen (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:In a country where a senior member of one Scout Association refers, on public record, to the other Scout Association as "a dissident organisation" (see reference 7 on main article), an independent Jamboree that brings elements of the two together is certainly notable. It has been reported on nationally on the television, and internationally in the press.  The main notability for this event, though, is that it was the major event celebrating the centenary of the first official Scout Camp held by Baden-Powell.  This, in itself, is notable.   DiverScout (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "I do not see the historical dimension of this event" - time will prove the historical dimension to this event, that is exactly why it must be recorded now! Jergen's main point seems to be the size of the event - this seems to show a lack of appreciation for history. Small acorns leading to mighty oaks as Baden Powell fameously wrote. If Jergen's point stands then the majority of Wikipedia needs to be removed - Sellafield railway station is an obvious example that the "Random Article" feature brings to mind. As Jegen says, as this was a significant as it was "the first step of rapprochement between TSA and BPSA" and as such may gain "historical significance". Whilst the offer was apparently controversal, it was taken up by a number of WOSM and SA members. See the 147 posts discussing Jamboree 2008 and the BPSA on the popular Escouts Forum for further discussion proving this event's significance. Porlhews (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porlhews (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The article needs more work, but is not irredeemable. More reliable sources have been added and the citations have been cleaned up so that they are more recognizable. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tertiary Sources (Specific issue cited for this article)
Although some of the news entries had been deleted before I could link to them, there are now several reliable tertiary sources added to this article, in both the UK and Portugal. Hexham Courant (Northumberland, UK), Lynn News (Norfolk, UK), Primeira Mão (Portugal), Maia Hoje (Portugal), Awards for All, WFIS, a Scout Association County newsletter and an entry from the Northumberland National Park.
 * The first four appear to be good sources; the others are more primary, but helpful. If you still have the links to the online articles that were deleted, list them on the talk page an we will see if we can recover them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that this meets the requirements in terms of referenced tertiary sources needed for a Wikipedia article? Please compare this to Jamboree 2008 (Ireland) (noted as needing extra sources on 1st August 2008, but not placed AfD) or 21st World Scout Jamboree (all bar one entry appear to be non-tertiary, and the tertiary source is regional media (see above)). DiverScout (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If those articles have problems, then they will be dealt with as needed; we need to focus on this article in its own context; see Other stuff exists. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can trace the old articles.  I agree that we do have to look at this on its own merit (which I maintain it has!), but the extra comment probably relates to the fact that I must confess that I'm still slightly "peeved" that this has been forced to be done through the AfD process, rather than the normal channels employed on other Scout articles!  Also, as it says on Other stuff exists;  "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." DiverScout (talk) 13:26, 9 October 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.