Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goose Pond Scout Reservation

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 No consensus thud default keep. First the nominator is accused of sockpuppetry and second there is no consensus for deletion. Merge possibilities can be discussed in the talk page of the article.--JForget 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goose Pond Scout Reservation

Goose Pond Scout Reservation (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 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete camp is clearly not notable, even though it is in a series on nominations that smell of WP:POINT in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi TonyBallioni 19:19, 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 19:47, 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) 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as with others in this AfD series, and a Demerit to nom for failure to bundle them. DMacks 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirectpe DMacks.Rlevse 21:34, 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) 04:03, 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)
  • 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) 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most summer camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into the council article. Vegaswikian 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please define the statement, "nothing asserts notability?" You seem to use it a lot. --evrik (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm known for a generous feeling on things like this, but i myself really do not see just what does assert or indicate any particular notability. DGG (talk) 01:29, 26 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.