Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Tuckahoe

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/No consensus to delete however possible merging can be discussed at the talk page of the article as no consensus for deletion is obvious.--JForget 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Tuckahoe

Camp Tuckahoe (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)
  • Weak delete I have been to this camp, and there really isn't anything that defines it from other camps, and the article does not appear to establish notability. However, the nominator's recent contributions indicate that this may be an attempt to make a WP:POINT based on the recent Camp Minsi deletion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:31, 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 19:45, 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) 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. One of several camps owned by one of many scout Councils, with no specific notability, so at best a sentence mentioning it in that council's page. AfD trend is that camps generally are not notable, and there's not even a claim that this one is. Regarding Precious Roy, one could WP:AGF here and see "one was deleted, others look like that deleted one, let's talk about them too." AfD usually gets more attention than PROD in my experience. DMacks 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania and let it incubate. Rlevse 21:35, 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) 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC) --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)
  • Speedy Keep - Another bad faith nomination by MinsiPatches. Mike6271 22:09, 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)
  • Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most summer 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. Vegaswikian 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.