Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Quest

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. Consensus is that the article is best Kept and improved upon. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Quest[edit]

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

Promotional article for the camp and its sponsor. NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, regardless of quibbles about notability The promotionalism is evident by the photos of routine camp activity, the details of camp activities, the excessive detail about spin-offs, and such phrases as " a space where children who are already nonreligious can feel comfortable and accepted." the elaborate discussion about the meaning of their logo, and the paragraph about " Murrow Indian Children's Home donation". DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatant WP:PROMOTION. Rrachet (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Of all the sources, most are primary and autobiographical. Only two or three are from secondary sources, and of those, none are neither not about the camp itself nor are routine. alphalfalfa^(talk) 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I don't see so much advocacy or promotion, just a "fair enough" description of the camp and its activities, which is somehow notable. It sure can be improved with extra sources and the like, but not deleted. MaeseLeon (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I don't see this article as "promotional" any more than other articles devoted to similar educational organizations and events. Camp Quest events are conducted by disparate groups of people, and involve a large number of children and adults in several different countries. The article would certainly benefit from press articles from international sources, but it deserves the chance to be improved.VaDawn (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an improve. I agree with the contents of the original nomination. The article is poorly written. It can be re-written to to fit within Wikipedia guidelines. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, than I would re-vote to keep it. :) After thoroughtly re-reading the article, I don't see anything especially promotional, it's more of an introduction and a pretty neutral description of what they do at that camp. Actually, it's way less biased that many religious and religious activities-related articles. If it's guilty of something, it's guilty of being a too-plain explanation of the activity. But camp Quest is somehow notable and the article is pretty fair and properly referenced. MaeseLeon (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve. Once again I agree with the comments about the logo & Murrow Indian Children's Home donation. I have edited the page to reflect this. To be honest I don't understand why the section about th Murrow Indian Children's Home donation wasn't just deleted anyway. I'm not concerned either way about the other issues raised the deletion nomination. The page definitely needs improvement, but not deletion. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2017 (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.