Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Massad (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Massad

Question: Why was the original creator of this article not notified about the votes to delete. It's now on his page, see User talk:Sens08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Camp Massad is unique as the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada, has been serving the Winnipeg Jewish community for over 50 years, and the article is sourced through links to the Camp Massad website and news articles written about the camp by various Jewish periodicals, all reputable sources. --Darknightonight 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Uniqueness is generally not particularly sufficient. I see that it has been around 50 years which is pretty good, but I'm sure that a lot of ethnic/religious youth groups have also been around that length of time and are not regarded as being notable. I agree that the sources are reliable, but I'm also sure that many regional religous/ethnic group magazines will make a noticeboard section about their youth programs so to speak. What is the size of this camp, for instance. Did it win awards for its social work? At the moment the articel is long but seems to have been inflated by large amounts of material which seems like a camp programme/manual/calendar/schedule.`Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Darknightonight created his account the day before this vote took place and has since only edited one page — this one. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
He still has very good points, even if he's a new member. 24.66.94.140 20:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but not saying that this is the case, but when things like that happen, it offen brings to mind sockpuppetry. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did create my account only yesterday; long time user of this site, first time member. I use Wikipedia as a reference, including looking at the page Camp Massad, an organization I do have some familiarity with. When I saw that Camp Massad was up for deletion, I created this account in order to give some credence to my arguments as to why this article should be kept. I can understand how that can be misconstrued as sock-puppetry, but I assure you it was only done to speak up against efforts to remove this article. --Darknightonight 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my previous comments regarding camps. Use clean-up tag if article needs improvement. -- JJay 10:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Darknightonight, camp is mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [1]. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The current incarnation of the article should be adopted by the camp's website, because that's how it reads. This should be an encyclopedia article, not free web space or a parallel to the organisation's website. Keep if and only if the article is rewritten to show, through the use of externally verifiable information sourced from or cited in reliable third-party sources, information pertaining to the history and social/cultural/regional impact of the camp. NOT a detailed play-by-play report of camp life and organisational structure. 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article is very thorough, an important part of the History of the Jews in Canada, and shows the strong connections that the Jews of Canada have with Israel. IZAK 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Clean up' or delete - this article is entirely original research. The topic itself may have notability, but it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like ad, blizzard of information, all WP:NOR, notability uncertain. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Primary problems is that this appears to be based off originial research, lacks verifiable information from reliable sources, it doesn't really distinguish the subject from other summer camps that kids have attened for decades, and seems to be pretty close to WP:NOT a webhost. That said, it's quite a well written and formatted article...--Isotope23 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hold a personal bias as a member of the camp, and the original author of this entry, but the reasons to keep this article far outweigh the points to delete it. A run of the mill camp does not have the only synagogue in Winnipeg Beach. The same camp would not be the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada. The same camp would not be the only sleep-away Jewish camp in Manitoba. If this article reads to much like an add, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Per above, and per my own, this article should no doubt be kept, and this ridiculous summer camp crusade should come to an immediate end. Sens08 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Might I point out that since you wrote this article purely on personal experience, it is in clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research? And please do not use the word crusade, it only serves to make any discussion more heated than it already is. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, that it has original research, however while the camp is publicized, the information about it is definitely not. The information on the entry is in no way hearsay. And I use the word crusade for one reason, There are 16 Jewish Camps listed in Wikipedia, 12 are up for deletion. Its hard to beleive its a coincidence. Sens08 21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As before. This is the only Hebrew-immersion camp in Western Canada, mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [2], certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps, such as Camp takajo or Woodward Camp, or indeed almost any of the camps in that category, almost all of which are referenced at best by a link to the camp's website. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Hebrew immersion camp seems notable. Delete No more notable than any other summer camp with an angle. Ted 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (changed from keep to delete Ted 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep This looks like unique camp, however doesnt differentiate between this Camp Massad and other Camp Massads--Gregorykay 00:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The camp is known through most of North America, though it is a Canadian camp a lot of Americans have attended and are attending. The fact that the small Jewish community of Winnipeg has a summer camp that attracts kids from all over North America is worth keeping. A camp like Camp Massad is unique in its programming and location, therefore the article should be kept so that other people that might hear about it can look at the article and know what the camp is all about.
  • Keep seems notable --Shlomke 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without repeating all the previous information, I agree that camp massad is an important aspect of the Jewish community of Manitoba and Canada. It is a great place for children to connect to their Judaism to help teach about their own religion. It is very important this article stays posted since it discusses the programs and everything that occurs and is very informative on it. This is the most positive information I have seen on one camp in a long time. It is very informative without being too personal. Please consider this for the camp's benefit before you take it down. If need be, i vote edit rather than delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.26.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- I already voted to keep this before, I vote so again -- thank you, DR., for wasting my time by making me do this over and over... Rooster613rooster613Rooster613 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. <Camp Massad of Manitoba deserves as much right to deserve an entry on a global encyclopedia as much as any other organization does. The article was written for the people by the people. It may go against the rules of Wikipedia, but there are tons of other articles with invalid information. the Camp Massad article is ligit because the people who wrote it are active members at the camp.>. 24.76.228.13 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note - IP's first edit. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is not "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words" as WP:NOT also "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable" This information is verifiable and is not just opinion. 24.79.132.194 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note - First AfD edit by this IP. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable in any way, the article is partily a copy-vio, and contains no indication of notability. I could find about a thousand 8-year-old who are mentioned by newspapers, too. That does not mean they should be included on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wow, i can't believe you guys would take the editing of wikipedia seriously enough to ban the products of the hard work and time spent by the writers of this this aticle. When you speak of something as wideranging as wikipedia, who's to say that one article is more significant than another. This page and this camp are obviously important enough in the lives and history of the many people who have passed through it's gates in the many years this camp has been around. It is also a wonder how those in favor of deleting this article came across it in the first place, and it's a shame that the feelings like these couldn't be used for more constructive purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.136.83 (talk • contribs)
Note - IP's first edit. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some of the brand new users seem quite confused about what makes something a legitimate Wikipedia topic, for instance 24.76.228.13 (talk · contribs) and 142.161.26.22 (talk · contribs). This is an encyclopedia. General interest to readers (which is lacking in this topic and this article) is a reason to keep. The "benefit" of an organization is not. And as for slapping a clean-up tag on it, I'm becoming more and more dubious of further inflating the already huge category of useless stubs with cleanup tags that nobody is doing anything about. Go clean it up already, and it'll surely be kept. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. Sockdrawer, very poor article quality, next to no assertion of notability. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Isotope23 and Bishonen. bogdan 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bishonen and User:PZFUN...Scott5114 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Too much trivial information on a non notable subject. This article is seriously embarrassing to the project. Aspern 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am proud to say that I do in fact "take the editing of wikipedia seriously enough" to want to keep only articles that (a) belong in an encyclopedia and (b) meet Wikipedia policies. Point (a) is debatable for this article; reduced to stub length, it would be like one of 10,000 other harmless little articles on the fringes of notability. Point (b) though, makes me a litle nauseous when I read through this thing: No Original Research and Verifiability, two of Wikipedia's most critical content policies, have been wildly, thoroughly ignored; ignoring those to such a degree inevitably creates conflicts with the third, WP:NPOV, as well. I sympathize with the work that went into this and I encourage the creators to move this material to another website before it is deleted, but this is not material that belongs in Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Although some page about a notable and rather large Jewish summer camp can be kept, I express dismay at the excessive amount of original research that is put into this. A summer camp does require so much information that isn't even going to really concern many people. I suggest a cleam up and a reduction to stub length. - XX55XX 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article provides fun facts and interesting information as well as the actual, technical details of how the camp is run, which makes it entirely unique. It is imperative that it be kept up and running. - Susan & Liat --84.229.46.95 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete rewrite needed - delete for now. I see potential if someone removes the POV and every advertising aspect in this article. It's a close call on notability, but that can be resolved on rewrite. The article is way too long for its purpose and subject matter. This article will be deleted unless someone steps forward and cleans up the mess that is there right now. B.Wind 12:48, 28 May 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.