Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Deerhorn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Camp Deerhorn
- Originally considered a speedy, but I've nominated for AFD to let the community decide on whether or not this is worthy of inclusion. No vote on my part. Roy A.A. 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd hit it. Delete, non-notable business. Lord Bob 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I'm of the opinion that any real camp (ie, not a church camp, not an after school program) that has been around since 1930 is probably notable. My concern is that there is not very much non-self-generated information out there from which to construct an article. [1] was the only one I found in the first few pages of g-hits. BigDT 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Agree with BigDT: a camp that's been around for 75 years has to be at least somewhat notable... at least for its age. This may sound silly, but seeing some camps here on AfD recetly, maybe better to establish some policy on camp notability? ikh (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I was the one nominating the article for speedy delete. I looked for some info to check for notability but can't found any. As of now, this is an advertisment page. I m not sure age is enough to warrant this camp an article but I can understand the logic. I wouldn't oppose the article being re-created if it include other factors of notability than age alone Riadlem 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree with the age test. The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910, and many BSA camps were founded in the 1910s and 1920s, making them over 75 years old today. I even worked at one myself, and I worked at exactly one camp. As a family run camp, I think the relevant test is WP:CORP and this article contains neither an assertion of meeting those standards nor links to the required number of reliable sources. GRBerry 01:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - With regards to the BSA comparison, I would think that BSA council camps would certainly be notable and there are several that have articles ... see Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America). But even though BSA camps are notable, that's not a useful comparison to this camp, IMO. If WP:CORP is the only standard, then you're probably right about notability. As a corporation, they aren't notable ... but really, I look at something like a camp or school - even ones that are for-profit (I have no idea if this one is - I'm just assuming) as more than just WP:CORP. I look at them more like WP:ORG, even though they may be for profit. If sufficient non-self-generated sources can be found to write an article (the WP:ORG standard), I'm not overly opposed to keeping the article. BigDT 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Response Comment It is easy to overbroaden the scope of WP:CORP - after all, most organizations (camps, non-profits, the BSA, the Association for Left-Handed Tiddlywink Players in Poduck, etc...) are of the same legal forms as things that WP:CORP was intended to cover. If we had a standard for schools, camps could easily be fit with it. They both impact the same demographic. Unfortunately, this article version doesn't contribute to meeting the WP:ORG standard, as no third party sources are referenced. (And most of the article is made up of schedue minutiae that I'd be surprised to see in a third party source.) GRBerry 03:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - With regards to the BSA comparison, I would think that BSA council camps would certainly be notable and there are several that have articles ... see Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America). But even though BSA camps are notable, that's not a useful comparison to this camp, IMO. If WP:CORP is the only standard, then you're probably right about notability. As a corporation, they aren't notable ... but really, I look at something like a camp or school - even ones that are for-profit (I have no idea if this one is - I'm just assuming) as more than just WP:CORP. I look at them more like WP:ORG, even though they may be for profit. If sufficient non-self-generated sources can be found to write an article (the WP:ORG standard), I'm not overly opposed to keeping the article. BigDT 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Again, this is a case lacking clearly applicable standards, but unless there is some evidence that the camp stands out by its particular history or historical importance, by its particular nature, by its unexpected location, by its activities or anything of that sort, there is no reason to keep this as the content then clearly has zero encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 24 June 2006 (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.
