Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Minsi

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. A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. If some of the very well-researched background information from this article is required to merge into another article (such as Minsi Trails Council or to start an article on Pocono Summit, contact me via my talk page and I will userfy the article. Neil ☎ 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Minsi[edit]

Camp Minsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is such a thing as a notable scout camp - I have been to one, Gilwell Park. But this is just... a scout camp. Cruftbane 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge - It is a good article with a lot of history in it. Though the camp may not be particularly notable, there is a lot of interesting history behind the history of the camp. It also has a neutral POV, so it isn't an advertisement for the camp. It also doesn't meet any category in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Mike6271 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because something is interesting does not make it notable. As you said the camp is not notable if the history is notable then it should have a seperate article to itself not be lumped together with a non-notable scout camp TonyBallioni 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we merge the camp information into Minsi Trails Council, but create a separate article with the history of the geographic area? Mike6271 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate of merging the article has already been discussed here and the conclusion was that the articles' importance and notability to stand independently has already been established. MinsiPatches 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before forming an opinion: Delete - If the scout camp is not notable, it does not deserve an article. If most of the interesting stuff happened centuries before the opening of the scout camp (and before the foundation of the Boy Scouts themselves), then one should convert it into an article about that geographical area or, if such an article already exists, merge the material in that article. --Goochelaar 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is full of weasel words about the "proud traditions" of the camp, which makes it read like an advert. While the history section is interesting and well-written, it has zero citations. It also doesn't need the dozen scout badge images (aren't those designs copyrighted to the BSA anyway?). Delete as non-notable, and adcruft. Kesh 23:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the badges are not copyrighted, owned, designed or even made by the BSA national; they are the property of the camp but have been released into the public domain by the camp. MinsiPatches 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - This article is an important component of the WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Scouting. The decision to create the article was carefully considered, and it was previously agreed that the article strongly merited stand-alone status. That continues to be the case. Some reworking to remove any "weasel words" and to add cititations (or citaiton needed tags) should be done to improve the article. But it should not be deleted. There are many independent sources that cover the camp, included several print sources, books, and other publications on the history and current state of Pennsylvania and Scouting. The subject's notablity has already been established; and it does not meet any category in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. CampMinsi 04:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there might be a conflict of interest here. While you have the right to participate in the discussion it should be noted that out of your roughly 220 contributions all but nine have been related to Camp Minsi in some way and that your username is the same as the articles TonyBallioni 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any claim to notability happened before the camp was formed and has no relation whatsoever to this camp TonyBallioni 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazingly detailed but still of questionabe notability. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any references to verify the article. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article has been deemed a notable and important article as part of WikiProject PA and WikiProject Scouting -- it is just as notable as many of the other individual camps or schools or parks that have their own articles. If references are needed to verify the article add {{fact}} tags to indicate what exactly needs citing. If things are POV or read like an advert, reword them (or remove them). If "too much" of the article focus on the pre-camp history of the land, clean it up. The article may not be to the "perfect" Wiki writing standards right now, but it should be improved and fixed rather than deleted due to its few current faults. It is a notable subject matter and just as important and notable as other subjects, camps, schools, parks and locations with their articles' existence being supported by the Wiki community. MinsiPatches 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — MinsiPatches (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • If this is the case, please show us what shows the camp's notability. Because it is not apparent in the article. -- Kesh 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. --evrik (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A good case for projects not having total autonomy. The article is mostly about the history of the general area before it became a scout camp, and the material on the camp is purely routine. No assertion of more than local importance in the Bethlehem Pa. area. As for adding reference tags, every paragraph in the article needs one. But they still wouldn't show importance. DGG (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable and passes the google test. As to the merge, under the guidleines set forth at Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations, it merits its own page. I also doubt the objectivity of the nominator (whose name gives away his bias). --evrik (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
    • Comment First, I think the article need a lot of work, but the authors have clearly put some effort into it. It could also use some referencing and some copyediting. That being said … there is sufficient information here to make the article notable, though not all the information in the article needs to be there.
Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations talks about how "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process."
The Minsi Trails Council article would be cluttered with the introduction of the information from the camp. Rather than deleting this article, it should be heavily copyedited so that it presents the facts and not sound like a brochure. --evrik (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Minsi Trails Council article has all the information that Camp Minsi should have if we deleted all the history that has nothing to do with the scout camp(the history might be notable in a separate article of its own, but should not be stuck with a scout camp whose only connection is geographic area.) After the irrelevant history section is taken out of the picture it is clear that this article is not notable and could easily fit within the Minsi Trails Council if anything more than what is there now is needed. TonyBallioni 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The history does not have nothing to do with the scout camp - it has everything to do with the camp. Many of the buildings in the camp are from the lumber and ice industries. The cabins of the 1700-1800s have been used for camping and other programs since the camp opened. The events and culture of the Native Americans, Sullivan, the area hunters, lumberers and icers are a large and central part of the camp's culture, program and facilities. Campers visit the Indian burial sites, the march the path of Sullivan, they visit the remote cabins of the area hunters, visitors explore the extensive ruins and facilities from the ice industry -- the camp embraces and brings the history to life in its programs and activities. The history of the land is a huge part of what the camp is and what they focus on - and anyone who has gone to the camp would say the same. CampMinsi 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the history of the local area to be the most interesting part of the article - though it needs to be sourced. --evrik (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned yesterday interesting is not the same as notable. Yes the history might be interesting and might be notable in another article. This does not mean that the camp is notable and the notability of the camp is what is at issue here. TonyBallioni 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's notable, and it's interesting. You keep saying, "interesting is not notable." WP:INTERESTING is just an essay. Could you please cite some policy here?" If you can't you are expressing your opinion, and that is not policy. --evrik (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:ONLYESSAY (also an essay) nowhere in the notability policy is the word interesting mentioned TonyBallioni 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article may have some faults (which should be fixed rather than deleting the whole thing), but I truly think the subject is notable. It is as notable as any other individual camp and any individual high school. I think the subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage (if fact, Camp Minsi has been given coverage in two printed encyclopedias that I know of), although the current coverage here could use some help to be brought up to Wikipedia's standard. I think tagging the article to be cleaned up and improved (and then improving it) would be better than tagging it for deletion (and tossing the whole subject out). CampMinsi 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that schools and camps are note inherently notable themselves. How does this article meet our guideline? -- Kesh 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - including (that I know of) two printed encyclopedias, 3 books on history of the Poconos, at least 1 popular guidebook to the Pocono Mountains, many newspapers, several national Scouting publications, many websites, and other sources. The article might not be well sourced right now, but it is a notable topic. CampMinsi 02:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Note User was recruited to contribute to this discussion by MinsiPatches TonyBallioni 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your tagging of people's comments is discourteous, and an obvious attempt to discredit them. Please stop. --evrik (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an attempt to discredit anyone they have a full right to participate in the discussion however I do believe it appropriate to note if someone takes place in an afd because of canvassing because that could be consider a conflict of interest and should be noted. TonyBallioni 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Canvassing is just a guideline and is not set in stone. It is perfectly reasonable to let people who have worked on an article know of some impending action. Your continually noting how people found out about the AfD is a form of abuse and does not WP:AGF. --evrik (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think MinsiPatches did anything wrong by alerting others that have contributed to the article about this. I was alerted with a message and the deletion tag even says to alert people invested in the article. But that issue is not really our focus here.
As for the deletion of this article: the first part of the deletion policy covers "Alternatives to deletion". I think it would be more prudent to have placed a {{notability}} and/or{{npov}} and/or {{verify}} tag on the article or even made a comment stating ones concern about the article on the talk page rather than jump directly to proposing deleting the entire article. This nomination came as quite a shock to me, as I did not think that the subject would ever be in danger of losing all coverage on Wikipedia. I've been working on the article for more than a year and have seen the article defended and survive a prior deletion proposal - so I thought that despite some faults the subject could still be covered by Wikipedia. The article needs some work done (possibly by people not personally invested or involved in the camp). There is research that can be done, the camp is a large part of the community of Eastern PA, and the Scouts of the NE region – it has been mentioned and featured in many PA, national and Scouting documents, books and publications. The notability and supporting information exists out there. The subject can be brought up and covered appropriately under wikipedia’s standards and criteria - although it may need some polishing and cleaning up. I think deleting the whole thing would be a step in the wrong direction here. I think that following some of the "alternatives to deletion" would be the more appropriate choice to foster growth and improvement of the subject and its coverage here. CampMinsi 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I can assume good faith for the people who were contacted by MinsiPatches I cannot assume good faith on MinsiPatches because of the fact that he only contacted those people who were on record opposing the merger and asked them to participate ignoring the two people who did not believe that the camp merited its own article; if he had invited these people I would be willing to assume good faith on his part, but her did not so this is a clear example of WP:CANVASSING. TonyBallioni 12:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing in the article to establish that the camp is notable. Move the history section to appropriate homes IF it is referenced rather than OR. Nuttah68 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article is too big (the badges need to go, for instance), but a brief synopsis for a camp of this vintage and history is OK. - Richfife 22:22, 21 October 2007 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camp_Minsi&oldid=1068887495"