Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ockanickon

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 was Keep as no consensus for deletion. Merge options can be discussed in the talk page. --JForget 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Ockanickon

Camp Ockanickon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 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)
  • Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania 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)
  • Keep 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)
  • 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)
  • Speedy Keep - A bad faith nomination by the nominator. Mike6271 22:12, 23 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) 04:27, 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 20:00, 25 October 2007 (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.