Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resica Falls Scout Reservation


 * 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 for deletion thus default keep. It's obvious that deletion is not recommended by the discussion, so if necessary please discuss any possible merging in the talk page. See also: Suspected sock puppets/MinsiPatches as the nominator is accused of sockpuppetry.-- JForget 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Resica Falls Scout Reservation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith - there is nothing wrong with AFD nominating unencyclopaedic articles. This was discussed on the admin board, and consensus was it was fine.  Neil   ☎  22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Camp Minsi was an article about a camp in Pennsylvania. The nominator listed seven camps for deletion, six from PA. The nominator was a frequent contributor to the Camp Minsi article. Seems like a prima facie case of not "Acting in Good Faith." As for, "there is nothing wrong with AFD nominating unencyclopaedic articles," could you please give us the Wikipedia policy that documents this? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:AFD? Don't try to Wikilwayer, especially if you really suck at it. Neil   ☎  13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania Cradle of Liberty Council and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Gadget850. DMacks 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Gadget850.Rlevse 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cradle of Liberty Council, although I doubt it will ever be notable for an article of its own. Neil   ☎  22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but you never know. If someone is looking for it, the redirect will kick them to the right place. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As an example of how little people are really thinking about what they are writing, if (God forbid) this article was to be merged, it should go into Cradle of Liberty Council. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct on that point; I did not examine deeply enough to realize it belonged in the council article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article was featured as a DYK. This was a bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Pennsylvania article. Also, stub articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. It passes the google test for notability, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidelines about when an article can be split out.  --evrik (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a valid reason to discuss at AFD, which from the above arguments there ovviously is, accusations of "bad faith" is, in itself, equally bad faith. Give a reason to keep the article rather than mudslinging, this isn't a valid argument.  Neil   ☎  13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a valid reason to discuss at AFD, which from the above arguments there ovviously is, accusations of "bad faith" is, in itself, equally bad faith. Give a reason to keep the article rather than mudslinging, this isn't a valid argument.  Neil   ☎  13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination, do not AfD articles just because you are upset. Mike6271 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a valid reason to discuss at AFD, which from the above arguments there ovviously is, accusations of "bad faith" is, in itself, equally bad faith. Give a reason to keep the article rather than mudslinging, this isn't a valid argument.  Neil   ☎  13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.


 * First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.


 * Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.


 * It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.


 * Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentScouting in Pennsylvania is a separate issue. Indeed, I had a look at it during the Minsi AfD and was going to propose that it is time for it to split into council articles, but that must be done carefully.  I really wish we could have a good article on each camp, but it just is not happening.  Most of the articles in question here have existed for for at least a year and still have not shown notability.  The Scouting guidelines (old and proposed) on WikiProject Scouting/MOS is derived from Notability (organizations and companies).  Each article must show notability on its own—if it hasn't happened after a year, then it is not likely to ever happen.  WikiProject Scouting is not a walled garden and must operate within the broader Wikipedia guidelines.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Notabiltiy is subjective. Theres is also no policy that says how long a stub may exist before it has to expand. I say this subject is notable. Again, it was worthy of a DYK mention. --evrik (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability.  As with most of these camps, they lack notability.  At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, they are for notable articles that need more material. When these AfDs are finished, someone needs to address the template that is the likely cause for the creation of these nn articles.Vegaswikian 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.