Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camps Kenwood and Evergreen

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. There appears to be consensus that depth of coverage is not achieved here. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camps Kenwood and Evergreen[edit]

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

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

This camp was created by a promotional user and fails WP:ORG. It has no reliable secondary sourcing or no indication of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:

--Doncram (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Two of those five have been closed "Keep", overriding the skeptical comments of persons also commenting negatively here, and the one closed "Delete" will be contested with its closer and/or at Deletion Review. Two are still open. IMHO, these AFDs are really unhelpful. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't seem badly promotional at all to me, and promo can be addressed by normal processes of editing. This is about a pair of camps established in 1930 and 1950 and still operational, though there have been name changes(?), which serve hundreds of children each summer, so are comparable to public high schools in the U.S. in terms of their impact/exposure in people's lives.

This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations); i have seen other campaigns too. I don't get the interest in deleting these. It can be appropriate to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely has been covered in newspapers and in guidebook-type sources, much coverage being long pre-internet.IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. In newspaper archives I see only brief mentions, mainly in regard to their permanent cessation of rifle-training in 1999 following a nearby shooting, and in relation to the Huberman family. But these are all one line mentions, no signifiant coverage.----Pontificalibus 06:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching needed on Arthur Sharenow, Judy Sharenow, Scott Brody, as well as Huberman family, in association with these camps. Scott Brody is a national figure, has reportedly "led briefings" to U.S. Congress, per this blog of Everwood Day Camp, which he also founded, in addition to his ownership and management of Kenwood and Evergreen camps. And there

is this bio about him relating to 2018 speech. I don't mind if this article includes more about him, i.e. is sort of a combo article about him and the camps. And this video news story "Scott Brody of Camps Kenwood & Evergreen interviewed on NECN", from New England Cable News in 2012, with a lot of summer camp footage (not very clearly identified?, but then "Camp Evergreen" comes up in a title) by the way. And one hour speech by Scott Brody at Leaders Assembly in 2016. Scott Brody is pretty clearly individually notable on his own, if not being covered as part of this article, which is also okay.

Again, these camps are old, from 1930 and 1950, and pre-internet coverage is to be expected, too. Is there anything factually disputed about this article, at all?

And, wp:ATD tells us we should look for alternatives to deletion, and there is no way this article should be deleted outright. At a minimum, the camps should be mentioned/covered in a new article about Scott Brody, or this article could be moved and expanded to be more about him. But it seems to me best to keep article about the longterm camp and cover more about him in this article and in a new separate article. --Doncram (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found plenty of coverage about camps called Evergreen and Kenwood in Newspapers.com, but it will take time to work out where the camps are located, and if any of the coverage relates to these particular camps. Per WP:NEXIST, the state of sourcing within an article is not a reason to delete, and the nominator does not indicate that they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE, particularly in historical sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This misguided attempt to purge Wikipedia of camp articles needs to end. People like camp articles and have fond memories about the camps they attended. There is coverage and the camp is still in operation. Knox490 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about if people like camp articles or if they have memories. It is about if they are notable enough for inclusion per guidelines. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Number 5 7 15:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to punish the editors/article because the sources, known to exist, haven't yet been added to the article? That is not how this works. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to these multiple independent sources that are known to exist and which cover the camp in detail, so that I can read them and add them to the article? ----Pontificalibus 08:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is Hollywood Reporter's article: 13 East Coast Camps Where Hollywood Stars Spent Their Summers, from 2016. And First American-Style Sleepaway Camps Open In China, from wbur.org's Here and Now, whatever that is, about how the director of the two camps is being invited to develop/apply the model in China. And it is notably gluten-free. Did you or anyone else try searching on "Camp Kenwood" and/or "Camp Evergreen", rather than "Camps Kenwood and Evergreen". I doubt that highly, because there are lots of hits. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added the first two to the article, although principally to verify specific facts. There might be lots of hits, but do we have multiple independent sources discussing the camp in detail? I think it's pretty borderline - WP:ORGDEPTH says we need "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". ----Pontificalibus 06:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have input on any additional sources and more commentary on the ones already mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a worthy article and the sourcing has been improved since nomination. However, reading through the sources available, the depth of coverage simply is not there to met WP:GNG. Sorry. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2019 (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.