Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timanous

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. --Ezeu 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timanous

• Delete. Yet another nonnotable summer camp NawlinWiki 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The camp's been around almost a century. Moreover, Wikipedia's not paper. PRRfan 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and STRONG clean up The camp has been around for a century, it was founded by a notable person, and "Camp Timanous" gets 1,810 Google hits (although only 147 are unique, which is a concern). Googling just "Timanous" gets 7,550 hits and all of the top hits refer to the camp, although only 191 are unique. So, while I'm barely voting keep, this is among the least encyclopedic encyclopedia article I've ever seen. WP doesn't need to list every (or pretty much any) activity that goes on at the camp. WP doesn't need an awards summary. WP also doesn't need the POV that's exhibited in the article. -- Kicking222 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My house is 100 years old. JACamp. -- GWO
• Keep-This article concerns a 100-year-old summer camp, with a rich heritage as one of the first and leading summer camps in the US. Its stability, track record, thousands of alumni, consistent success, and role in shaping modern New England camping are all assured. The founders, Luther Gulick and his wife, are children's physical education innovators and used Timanous as a template for their work (please see Luther Halsey Gulick's entry for more on his contributions to basketball, the Campfire Girls program and physical education). Camp Timanous's unchanging values, consistent ownership and staffing, rich generational tradition, and small size all make it an interesting abberation in a growing age of homogenous, do-it-all camps. This is a unique enterprise and deserves inclusion in wikipedia.

As concerns the complaints of Kicking222, the depth of the article should not be a negative. By covering as much ground as possible, in a cohesive and organized manner, a reader can acquire as little or as much information as he or she seeks. By including the most vital facts (e.g. location, date, owners, etc.) at the beginning and continuing on to include more trivial, yet still possibley interesting, information throughout the article, I believe that the writers (myeself included) have developed an interesting article relevant for anyone searching for information about the camp. Crogle94

• Delete The article doesn't asserts the notabolity of the camp. Garion96 ^(talk) 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, clean-up, and add references. Articles about far less notable subjects have survived AfD. This is the best of the summer camp articles proposed for deletion so far this week (that in itself is not sufficient to keep, but with a little work, it will be a keeper. As far as GWO's 100-year-old house is concerned, it would be notable if it's on the National Register of Historic Places, for example. B.Wind 14:59, 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.