Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Camp

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Camp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look? Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has more or the same notability as the other camps in {{Summer camps in New York}} El Johnson (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It you're right; we can delete those in due course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator appears to be going through a list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surprise Lake Camp for example, where a summer camp that really obviously meets wp:GNG is also nominated for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, where I also vote Keep. I assume wp:BEFORE standard is not met here, either, for this Forest Lake Camp article. I voted Keep also for similar reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp, too. --doncram 20:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) --doncram 21:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust that whoever closes this AfD will take into account your partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My same response to Pigsongthewing's identical statement in similar AFDs: Absolute nonsense. Please do try to explain where there was any "canvassing" at all. In several AFDs on summer camps that Pigsonthewings has nominated, i have pointed to other ongoing AFDs about summer camps, pointing out some relatedness between the AFDs. This seems appropriate, there is no canvassing to user pages or to any Wikiprojects. Nonsense. --do ncr am 00:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic camp that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be significant with regards to the general notability guideline. Unless there is sufficient coverage in secondary sources, it doesn't appear to be notable. Tutelary (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is as notable as Summer Camps go, it is over 80 years old, and is mentioned in secondary sources. El Johnson (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:29, 14 May 2014 (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.