Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kupugani

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kupugani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is completely unreferenced, subject lacks coverage in reliable sources, and PROD has been removed twice. Meatsgains (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Was Speedy Keep, but this is no longer timely.] Sorry for my strong terminology, but it is ~~idiotic~~[not socially astute] for Wikipedia to be trying to delete article on what is reportedly unique: a black-owned private summer camp of some type, without doing due diligence. The assertion that there is no sourcing is false: consider the external link to the camp's website...that is reasonably assumed to be the source. And the website includes "in the media" section that includes scanned copy of Harvard Magazine article and more that support facts in article.

No offense intended, but it was the nominator who twice prodded the article, violating rules for prods. It having been prodded twice is reason to lay off, not to delete it. Prods were properly removed.

Other recent AFDs (I presume nommed by different editors than here, but irking me) went after Vietnamese student groups and Thai student groups, potentially further alienating many (and at least one of those was deleted too, despite sources available and despite contrasting Wikipedia coverage of huge numbers of white American student sororities and fraternities that are far smaller and have less adequate sourcing). There are many summer camp articles. But hey, why not go for broke on another minority and clarify the message.... :( --do ncr am 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC) [20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible this article could be salvaged, because I found mention of it in several national publications: the New York Times, USA Today, and NPR. I'll see if I can find more, and work these sources into the article, when I have more time. Ironically the NPR item disproves the claim to be the only black-owned summer camp in the US; see Camp Atwater. And the sources all describe it as a camp for girls, period. So the article needs a lot of work but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding sources. The "only" claim sounded suspicious: how would anyone know such a thing. Common problem that is a matter for editing. It would likely be true with some reasonable qualifications to be added. If claimed, it's likely it is one of few, or one of oldest, or only known one, or the like. Often best to say "it has been claimed to be". Tx. do ncr am 04:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say Keep, and I will watchlist this discussion; if the result is "keep" I will add citations to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (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.