Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CampFire Stories

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 Delete this collection of campfire stories; no prejudice against a sourced article on the subject of campfire stories. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:00Z

[edit] CampFire Stories

CampFire Stories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete. The nature of this subject is to be passed on orally, therefore making it hard to write an article with facts. Bouncy 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete see WP:NOT. WP is not for a collection of stories. Mak (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could see a good encyclopedic article on this subject (verifiable history, traditions, etc.) but this jumbled collection of uncited material isn't it. Grandmasterka 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Whats rong with the article..its campfire stories stop deleting all my pages! pleassse theyre good , look how many hits they get. This one is atleast educational...somewhat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmfmets92 (talk • contribs)

Comment - you need to transform it into a clearly encyclopedic article, while citing sources. You should begin right away. CyberAnth 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic at this time (also not appropriate to put in the above comment in my view) -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could also see a good article on this subject, but everything about this article is wrong: the naming, the organization, WP:NOT, etc. The list goes on and on. WP is not a place to publish stories. It would be easier to scrap the entire thing and just start as a section under Ghost Stories or Horror Stories first, and redirect "Campfire Stories" to that. Maybe then it will accumulate enough to become its own article. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a press for these types of stories. A legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this is not the right start. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - everything's wrong. This breaks more rules than I have fingers. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host. Bastun 11:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If an admin is reading this, I'd consider a speedy. 129.98.212.73 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is clearly a notable vein of oral tradition. There are many publications, from the Foxfire books to Scouting manuals and more, that speak of camp fire stories both theoretically and practically and give story examples. The article sucks right now, true, but that is not grounds for giving it the old DELETE but for improving it. Bonny Hicks is a recent AfD'ed article where an editor, myself, decided to fix and expand it rather than just wield an ax (see difs here). The current article could become just as high of quality if an editor will but do it. I did one this week, anyone else game? :-) CyberAnth 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nice work on the Bonny Hicks article. But personally, Campfire stories aren't something I know enough about to avoid OR. There is nothing to stop the original author from copying the current article to userspace and turning it into something readable, but at the moment it isn't the basis for an article. Bastun 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I would generally agree with you except that your assertion assumes that only the initiating author(s) or a currently reading editor or expert exists that is qualified or is likely to expand it. Stubs or very poorly written articles exist for a reason per Wikipedia guidelines, and such articles are frequently expanded upon by persons other than the initiator, e.g., my "adoption" of the Bonny Hicks article, who I was acquainted with in only a minor way before delving into her life and contributions, although I consider myself an expert on literatures of discontent (which is a kissing cousin of post-colonial literature) and had a fair understanding of Singapore culture going in, which made things a bit easier. Bottom line: Generally, if a poor but potential-ridden article remains on article space, adoption by others can and frequently does happen, even by new Wikipedians who happen upon the article. Still: Author, are you listening? Prepare for the worst in the probably likely case that deletion happens: You can copy AND SHOULD RIGHT NOW copy this article on to your user space which I created for you at User:Nmfmets92/Campfire stories. Then, you can get it up to Wikipedia standards and repost it without any fear of it being deleted. It will definitely be a learning experience for you in either case. CyberAnth 12:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated question: Literature of discontent? Isn't that pretty much all literature? I'm hard-pressed to think of a single novel in which the main characters sit around giving thumbs up and laughing at how awesome their lives are. Ford MF 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Its literatures that played a significant role in decolonization, written by subjects in the language of the colonizers. CyberAnth 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously unencyclopedic. Not about campfire stories (the title isn't even in line with the naming conventions guideline). Obviously should not be a collection of campfire stories, but redirected to ghost story except that it is not a plausible misspelling. —Dylan Lake 00:07, 29 December 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.