Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog camp (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Article is in bad condition, but problems severe enough to require deletion have not been demonstrated. Substantive coverage of the concept as distinct from a kennel has been demonstrated, and while a merge to kennel involving an expansion of scope of that article is feasible, it is outside the scope of this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog camp

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dog camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. This article is an original research essay on a topic not supported or discussed by secondary sources. It can't be resolved. The essay is contrived from a collection of 6 articles/citations which contain the words "dog" and "camp". The error is that they have inappropriately mixed together four completely different variants/definitions/meanings of the word "camp". Cites 1, 3 & 4 refer to camp meaning "a place in the country for vacationers with outdoor recreation". Cite 2 is about "doggie daycare". Cite 5 is about a boot camp (intensive training). Cite 6 is about a camp site in Alaska, per "a place where an army or other group of persons or an individual is lodged in a tent or tents or other temporary means of shelter" (in this case, a seasonal location where snow is still available for those who regularly operate dogsled teams to continue training during certain seasons). Since four different meanings of the word "camp" have been mixed together, one isn't going to find any secondary sources discussing "this topic". As such, it is not notable or appropriate for Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge Reviewing the sources, agree with nom that this is original research synthesizing together sources on unrelated topics, with no source defining "dog camp" as that listed in the article. Kennel can largely cover this topic with a partial merge, as any place that takes dogs while their owners are away is still funamentally a kennel, even they provide more "running free" and "socializing experience" than merely keeping them in cages and going on walks. It it completely inappropriate to lump together a place that trains Alaskan malamutes how to be sled dogs with with a human camp with cabins or tents that for three days twice a year lets owners bring and teach pets. Reywas92Talk 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn’t know dogs go to camp. I have heard of dog daycare. Zoe1013 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no secondary sourcing either, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. William Harristalk 10:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously a cross between a dog park and kennel and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion. It is not difficult to find more coverage such as Dogs in the Leisure Experience. And I'm especially liking that they "typically screen potential canine guests for aggressive tendencies as they do not want to risk fights" – Wikipedia should try this. See also WP:BITE! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If members of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron want to participate here to score yet another article "saved", they will need to show notability regarding "Dog camp". That has not been yet been done. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content...."Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" A one sentence mention of "Camp Canine" in one book does not cut it. Additionally, I have no idea why WP:BITE was mentioned, perhaps you might care to explain? William Harristalk 08:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we've got here is perhaps more barking than biting but I've noticed over the years that the general topic of dogs seems to be quite a battleground -- mastiffs, baiting, breeds, &c. Anyway, if the ARS is needed to find more sources then I'm fairly sure that we can oblige. I thought the book was quite a good source but if that's not enough then see Modern Dog magazine: Dog Camp and Camp Canine. These demonstrate that the topic is notable and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the book was not "quite a good source" because it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Regarding Moderndogmagazine.com - "We reserve the right, but do not have an obligation, to monitor and/or review all materials posted to the Website or through the Website's services or features by users, and we are not responsible for any such materials posted by users." So the articles are posted by users and there is no editorial control, and therefore the articles are not independent per WP:SIGCOV again- "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." William Harristalk 08:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book is an excellent source and certainly passes WP:SIGCOV, as it addresses the topic directly and in detail. Modern Dog is fine too as it is a professional, published magazine and those articles are regular editorial content. The disclaimer on the website refers to comments and chat posted by readers who use the website and is not relevant. So, the topic is notable, our policies such as WP:PRESERVE apply and deletion is not appropriate per the policy WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do agree that Dogs in the Leisure Experience made a one sentence mention of "Camp Canine", yes?
The general disclaimer in Moderndogmagazine.com does not state that, that is a refined scope that you have invented. Do you have a reliable source that supports your position that in Modern Dog (magazine) "those articles are regular editorial content", else how did you arrive at this conclusion? William Harristalk 22:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From the history, it looks like this article was originally created way back when in order to promote a specific organization, and over time, the promotional material was removed and additional material was added. But, as described by the nom, this material was largely WP:SYNTH combining multiple different uses of the words "dog" and "camp" together, without actually describing a singular concept. As even the source mentioned by Andrew above describes the example of the "dog camp" as a type of kennel rather than a distinct, separate concept, a brief description of that variety could be feasibly added to the main kennel article. But merging information from this article over to do so would not be appropriate, due to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues present. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orginal page was taken to AfD soon after creation and the consensus was to keep the page. The page has sprawled a bit over the years since then but that's not a reason to delete. The topic is naturally broad as different institutions will run their camps in different ways. We have exactly the same issue with the human equivalent, which has numerous variants including weight loss, emotional education, academic adventure, &c. Such variety is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are generally clean up issues, not reasons to delete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking for sources I found:
    • Cawley, J. "This camp is for the dogs." Good Housekeeping 222, no. 6 (1996): 30-30.
    • Miles, Kathryn. "Dog Is Our Copilot." Ecotone 4, no. 1 (2008): 306-318. doi:10.1353/ect.2008.0083.
    • “FACTS: Pet Ownership.” ASPCA. American Humane Association, 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.
    • Glasser, Marilynn R. Dog Park Design, Development, and Operation. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2013. Print.
    • Lederer, R. A Treasury for Dog Lovers. New York: Howard Books. Print. 9 March. 2016.
    • Smith, Cheryl S. Visiting the Dog Park: Having Fun, Staying Safe. A Dogwise Training Manual. Wenatchee, WA: Dogwise Pub., 2007. Print. 20 Feb. 2016.
    • Stecchi, Susyn. So You Want to Build a Dog Park? A Comprehensive Guide for Municipalities and Private Entities. Sanford, FL: DogParks USA, 2003. Print. 20 Feb. 2016.
    • Wolfe, L. “Pet Products and Services Businesses Serve a Lucrative Industry.” Women in Business, 2009. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
    • Ulrike Uli Zimolag BScN, BScOT (Honours) (2011) An Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Caring for a Pet as an Everyday Occupation, Journal of Occupational Science, 18:3, 237-253, DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2011.586325
    • The Everything Small Dogs Book: Choose the Perfect Dog to Fit Your Living Space, Kathy Salzberg, Simon and Schuster, 2005; ISBN 1605509116, 9781605509112.
    • Dog Republic helps pet owners be leader of the pack (paywall)
    • Dogs and Big Data, a mini case study.
    • Camps for your dog.
    • Dog training Camp Programs
  • These are added to the ones already noted thus meeting BASIC/GNG. The clean-up issues are to be met but are not reasons for deletion. My suggestion for anyone taking this on is to systematically confirm everything cited so far, and are they general statements or to only certain types of dog camps. Then incorporate new sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a quick look at some of these sources show that they have the same issue as what was described with the current sources in the nomination. They are just examples of the intersection of the words "dog" and "camp", with no consistent description of what that means. Some of these describe training camps for dogs, some are campgrounds in which humans can go camping with their dogs, some are one-day van trips included as part of a dog-walking service, etc. And that is the issue - just because its easy to find examples of two words being used together, that does not mean that combo has an agreed upon meaning, or that the two words used together constitutes a unique, notable concept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intersection of the words "dog" and "camp" yields plenty of examples which indeed help little, but these offer one example after the next on facets of professional dog camps, how they work, different types, and who uses them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing this myself; apologies for the tangent — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started to read this, but kept getting distracted by all the graphics in signatures here. @William Harris: images aren't allowed in signatures. @Andrew Davidson: Unicode emojis aren't disallowed for some reason, but I'll register polite dismay at how distracting it is to have little pictures jump out from the text all over the page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion about sigs is likely to be even more distracting but now you've got me started. Having refreshed my memory, here's my story:
  1. I disapprove of ostentatious sigs and so, for most of my time on Wikipedia, I have had a vanilla signature without any formatting
  2. But I don't like long signature either and so started truncating them
  3. I now edit using my real name and so need to be mindful of stalkers. So, for a while, I started truncating my sig to "Andrew D." rather than the name in full
  4. But there are lots of other Andrew D's on Wikipedia including Andy Dingley and Andrew Dalby. So I was not content with that either.
  5. Last year I noticed that there was an admin called 😂. He was being desysopped but not for that reason. It was interesting that he had a username of just a single emoji so that got me thinking.
  6. It occurred to me that a dragon emoji might work well. This would have some thematic value as I consider myself to be a Dragon. The dragon emoji also looks like the letter D in some fonts that I use and that was good too.
  7. The emoji is just a single character and, by replacing " D.", made my sig two characters shorter. Andrew🐉 is just seven characters and so this is half the length of Rhododendrites, which is 14. Note also that it requires no special markup and so, when using the text editor, it still only occupies 7 characters whereas Rhododendrites takes about 100 characters to specify the font size, letter spacing, text-shadow, colour, &c. It's elaborate markup like this that makes editing talk-pages so intimidating to ordinary readers.
  8. There's still the issue of ostentation but a single character is comparatively modest compared to other garish sigs. And after 14+ years of editing, I feel reasonably entitled to some small vanity.
  9. More generally, I like adding graphics and pictures to our pages as they are otherwise a dull wall-of-text. That's why, for example, I added the picture of the St Bernard.
  10. If editors can't stand such ornamentation then there's a technical remedy. See the Unclutter signature minimiser.
  11. As for William Harris, they should note that there's a paw print emoji (🐾), which might be used in place of the file links to make his sig tighter and compliant with WP:SIGIMAGE. There are also some cute dog emojis including 🐕, 🐩, 🦮 and 🐶!
Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. :) I do appreciate the thought behind the dragon. It's true that my sig takes up more bytes, and it's a fair point that new users looking at the wikimarkup might not like seeing extra html/css/whatnot. Worth a conversation. For me, talk pages are all about the thoughts expressed, and pictures in the text are just incredibly distracting such that if there's too much in a thread I sometimes decide not to bother. It's hard not to be frustrated when one person insists (intentionally or not) on making my eyes go to their words above all others. Same with text highlighting, prohibitions on which, to my chagrin, have been rejected. So I appreciate I'm in the minority on some of this. I got the sense that pictures-in-signatures was something most people were behind in appreciating their potential for distraction, but I may be in the minority on that as well. Anyway, sorry for the tangent here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you; I was not aware that this breached WP:SIGIMAGE and I will be changing it shortly. William Harristalk 01:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kennel article defines its topic in a narrow, limited way as "a structure or shelter for dogs...". Dog camp would not be subordinate because one of the main points seems to be that the dogs get lots of outdoor activity and so the accommodation structure would just be part of the camp. And, currently, the kennel article only has 3 sources while the article in question is doing much better with 8. The tail should not be wagging the dog. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 16 September 2020 (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/Dog_camp_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=979126861"