- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Camp Pathfinder
AfDs for this article:
- Camp Pathfinder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This 100 year old camp [1] is located on its own island [2] in the middle of Source Lake in Ontario's Algonquin Provincial Park; whatever the particular notability of the camp, the island itself is probably notable per WP:NGEO. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable. Is the nominator going through some list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately? See also my Keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, and there are 5 or 6 other AFDs about summer camps in progress, where wp:BEFORE seems to me to not be met. -- do ncr am 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) -- do ncr am 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep historic camp that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica 1000 06:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Has not seen sufficient coverage in secondary sources according to WP:GNG. While interesting, the fact that it's on its island is not a claim of notability. Tutelary ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The island is important because, if the camp is not notable enough for its own article, the island still is, and best remedy would be to move this article to
Camp Pathfinder Island rather than to delete it, since the history of the camp is the same as the history of the island. (Much of the rest of the article could be edited down in either case.) --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The 'I just like it' argument I hope isn't going to stand by the reviewing admin. If it passes notability, then provide reliable sources for it. I haven't seen the sufficient coverage in the sources to warrant a keep. The other argument that 'the island is notable and therefore this is' is inherited notability, and is not permitted per the notability guideline for geographic objects. It must stand on its own to have its own article. Tutelary ( talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- The island is important because, if the camp is not notable enough for its own article, the island still is, and best remedy would be to move this article to
Camp Pathfinder Island rather than to delete it, since the history of the camp is the same as the history of the island. (Much of the rest of the article could be edited down in either case.) --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merge - I would really like to see this article kept and if anyone can demonstrate the it meets wikipedia requirements, I will change my vote to keep. However, I searched and searched and only found that one news article that is already cited. I'm not really sure what people are talking about when they say it's been covered extensively in the media. You'd think a 100 year old camp would have more written about it. I'd like the camp to find a place on wikipedia. If the other editors who say there are reliable sources could add them to the article, that would be awesome. Otherwise, I don't think it meets the sourcing criteria for wikipedia. Bali88 ( talk) 04:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, upon further searching, I found one more source: a book called: Treasuring Algonquin: Sharing Scenes from 100 Years of Leaseholding Bali88 ( talk) 04:24, 21 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Camp Pathfinder
AfDs for this article:
- Camp Pathfinder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This 100 year old camp [1] is located on its own island [2] in the middle of Source Lake in Ontario's Algonquin Provincial Park; whatever the particular notability of the camp, the island itself is probably notable per WP:NGEO. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable. Is the nominator going through some list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately? See also my Keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, and there are 5 or 6 other AFDs about summer camps in progress, where wp:BEFORE seems to me to not be met. -- do ncr am 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) -- do ncr am 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep historic camp that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica 1000 06:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Has not seen sufficient coverage in secondary sources according to WP:GNG. While interesting, the fact that it's on its island is not a claim of notability. Tutelary ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The island is important because, if the camp is not notable enough for its own article, the island still is, and best remedy would be to move this article to
Camp Pathfinder Island rather than to delete it, since the history of the camp is the same as the history of the island. (Much of the rest of the article could be edited down in either case.) --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The 'I just like it' argument I hope isn't going to stand by the reviewing admin. If it passes notability, then provide reliable sources for it. I haven't seen the sufficient coverage in the sources to warrant a keep. The other argument that 'the island is notable and therefore this is' is inherited notability, and is not permitted per the notability guideline for geographic objects. It must stand on its own to have its own article. Tutelary ( talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- The island is important because, if the camp is not notable enough for its own article, the island still is, and best remedy would be to move this article to
Camp Pathfinder Island rather than to delete it, since the history of the camp is the same as the history of the island. (Much of the rest of the article could be edited down in either case.) --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merge - I would really like to see this article kept and if anyone can demonstrate the it meets wikipedia requirements, I will change my vote to keep. However, I searched and searched and only found that one news article that is already cited. I'm not really sure what people are talking about when they say it's been covered extensively in the media. You'd think a 100 year old camp would have more written about it. I'd like the camp to find a place on wikipedia. If the other editors who say there are reliable sources could add them to the article, that would be awesome. Otherwise, I don't think it meets the sourcing criteria for wikipedia. Bali88 ( talk) 04:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, upon further searching, I found one more source: a book called: Treasuring Algonquin: Sharing Scenes from 100 Years of Leaseholding Bali88 ( talk) 04:24, 21 May 2014 (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.