Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECamp

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECamp[edit]

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

A completely unnotable article, of a merchandising nature, about a summer camp with 100-200 participants. Has notability template since January 2010. Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The camp is probably nice, but the only reliable external source in the article is a very short JPost article and this is far from enough. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. After researching this online I have come to the surprising conclusion that this camp is notable, despite the current style of the article. It is covered non trivially by major Israeli and Jewish publications independent of the subject and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See for example the following sources,
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] (In Hebrew)

[5] Marokwitz (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archived urls of the sources from WebCite for future reference:
1. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpSIlHz
2. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpTNYNX
3. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpTndV1
4. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpUjEB3
5. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpW7xFC
Cunard (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per sources procured by Marokwitz above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...keep. By 3 of the sources provided by Marokwitz I would have to say this meets ORG. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Marokwitz, ranging from the Haaretz to The Jerusalem Post, establish that ECamp passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Quite a few of the sources seem to be based on interviews with someone with a title not normally associated with a summer camp and/or a student, which makes me think they're influenced by a publicist. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2011 (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.