Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Zanika Lache

Add links
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 delete. Userfication is available upon request. kurykh 02:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Zanika Lache

[edit]
Camp Zanika Lache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Created by COI/SPA account. Not sure if it is notable enough for an article. Discuss. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a good faith editor. I told him/her about the username issue, but nobody suggested that s/he change his/her name. I'm not sure why everyone is so down on this editor, who is making good contributions, if also newbie-ish mistakes. I'm not sure the camp is notable, but deleting it because of a supposed SPA issue (s/he has also edited the article Camp Fire USA and made corrections to the Girl Scouts article) is wrong. Yes it's obviously likely there is connection with the camp or council with the same name. Perhaps the article could be merged and redirected to an appropriate target. I'm really tempted to bring up WP:NOHARM, but of course that wouldn't fly. My declared COI is that I was a longtime member of Camp Fire, a camp counselor and a recipient of the WoHeLo medallion. That and $5 will get me a latte at Starbucks. Now can we find another solution like merging this to an article about the local council? Katr67 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Since getting the message this morning I have changed my name as you can see. I read the rules but did not think it would be a problem. the only reason I added the webpage because I saw that there were other camps in Washington with the wikipages, (Camp Sealth, Camp Orkila ) there is a list of summer camps with links to their pages so I did not think it would be a problem to add one for zanika. There isn't one for its council cause the camp is more well known than the council. Sorry for making it seem like it was spam, but I have changed my name now.--Abebless (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I haven't change my name, I just started a new account because I am blocked and can not try and request a name change at this time.--Abebless (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments: First: take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Second: the big problem with these types of article is in establishing notability outside the local area. I'm not very familiar with Camp Fire organization, but if it is as similar to the BSA as I understand, then camps are not separate legal entities and they exist primarily to serve the local council. You are jumping from a national organization to a chunk of a local chapter; you really need to work from the top down. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the two news articles cited in the article's references, it seems to me like it satisfies WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Furthermore, while it does seem to need some cleanup to make it not read like an advertisement, it doesn't seem like the best course of action would be to delete it. --Aka042 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I am not entirely convinced that a summer camp is particularly notable, Wikipedia seems to have established that articles on summer camps are worth keeping. Take a look at Category:Summer camps in the United States, which lists quite a number of camps in the US. I took a look at some of them, and most do not seem more notable than this one. I know, this sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the point is that we do have established categories and subcategories for summer camps. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references provided, specially the Seattle PI article seems to indicate that this camp is notable. By looking at the category it seems that we do have an established tradition of including summer camps. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area.

While notability is not inherited up or down, the lack of any connection to the local council or to the national organization makes it difficult to asses the subject in context. It does not show how it serves the youth of the council and has only one illustration of serving youth outside the organization. I recommend that the article be userfied, expanded into a council-level article and reviewed before returning to articlespace; I will be glad to help in this process --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be ok then if I went through and added all the other camps, like Camp Arrowhead (Washington) and Camp Orkila to the AfD list, because as far as I can see Camp Zanika has more cited references.--Abebless (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not because of COI, but because not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article has a limited or no assertion of notability. While I do recognize that it's old and is accreditted, that alone isn't necessarly enough. It seems more suitable as part of a directory of camps and is unlikely to be searched on Wikipedia unless there is a major event. In summary, WP:NOTTRAVEL --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed since a week ago. This camp is still not notable. Enigmamsg 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The COI is in good-faith so I'm ignoring that. The article itself isn't notable enough for inclusion. The three arguments for notability in the lead are that the camp is ACA accredited, is 75 years old, and is a beneficiary of the united way. Age alone doesn't demonstrate notability, unless the camp is an extreme (IE: oldest camp in the state). ACA accreditation doesn't demonstrate notability since its standards aren't that high. The beneficiary of the United Way doesn't demonstrate notability because the United Way doesn't have to do with campgrounds. I can't find anything that separates this campground from the ordinary or distinguishes it. Themfromspace (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camp_Zanika_Lache&oldid=1088298869"