Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URJ Camp George

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 of the debate was merge all to URJ Camps. I will add the merge tags to the articles, but my role here is just closing the AfD, not doing the merge. I'll leave that to the people active and knowledgeable in editting these articles. W.marsh 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


URJ Camp George

[edit]

Blatanly WP:NPOV. No notability, no history (founded in 1999). Sure, it's run by the Union for Reform Judaism, so what? A line in the URJ article will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson 07:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note, there's a whole surfeit of similar WP:NN/WP:NPOV campcruft articles (my assessment of the articles alongside):
URJ Kutz Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Joseph Eisner Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Henry S. Jacobs Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Camp Harlam
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Greene Family Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Camp Coleman
WP:NN/WP:NPOV - longer article that reads like a brochure.
URJ Camp Newman
Blatantly trivial campcruft WP:NN.
URJ Crane Lake Camp
WP:NN and completely inconsequential.
URJ Camp Kalsman
Shaky WP:NN credentials because not built yet.
URJ Myron S. Goldman Union Camp-Institute
Gushing WP:NPOV adspam.
URJ Camp Swig
Currently closed, but at least begins to say something worthwhile. WP:NN still not there for me.
URJ Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute
This one at least has an article attached, although WP:NN is still dubious. And is this encyclopedic? Check out the blog-esque user signatures at end of main page too.
Unless notability can in any way, shape or form be demonstrated for any of these, I would personally Merge All into Union for Reform Judaism (for whatever value that would add), then Delete All.--DaveG12345 09:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment let's all cool down and let me make my point clear. There is avery decent entry for the organization running all of these camps and I'm just saying that there is no need for individual entries. There are countless summer camps everywhere in the world and it seems pointless to me (but not to others) to have an entry for each of them. Camps that have a well-established history or a particular significance in some respect should stay. The articles posted up for deletion appear to be neither. Note that I am not advocating the deletion of the URJ article just the related campcruft ones. Pascal.Tesson 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, hey, this was a good faith suggestion. I did in fact state "Unless notability can in any way, shape or form be demonstrated for any of these..." - well, if notability can be demonstrated, let's hear it. I am happy to change my position in light of new evidence. It is not enough to say "it needs expanding" - if it isn't notable to start with, it needs deleting. Assert the notability. --DaveG12345 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. A camp experience can be as formative as a year at school. All these establishments have significant reference value. TruthbringerToronto 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The camp I work helps formulate children and I know I help in giving them an excellent experience. However, I am fully aware that the camp I work at does not deserve an article because it is not notable. I have disagree with Truthbringer's logic because this is not an evaluation, and the belief of keeping that is pure speculation. Notability is not established and to the best of my observations, does not yet exist. Yanksox (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Merge per other comments. Yanksox (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All as per nom and to stop sliding down the slippery slope of "if schools why not summer camps?, if summer camps, why not local youth groups? if youth groups why not kindergarten groups?" Bwithh 23:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, for I share some responsibility for the existence of these pages, Delete. Notability just isn't there. Forgive me, for I was young and foolish. -Joshuapaquin 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Bwithh and Yanksox; no notability claimed or implied, and the fact that they read like advertising copy ("lucious greenery and stunning views", "ideal setting for children ... to grow and develop as members of the Jewish community") doesn't make me any more inclined to keep them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above -- Nesher 15:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two articles for deletion today -- the Shefa Network article and this one -- both arguably have only modest (but not miniscule) notability compared to major Jewish denominations and figures. But they seem to be getting a different mixture of keep and delete comments. Want to express a concern that relatively obscure but noncontroversial institutions within major denominations have little delete pressure, while institutions which are more controversial have much more such pressure. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't conclude that. Right now, only Shuki and Truthbringertoronto suggest that the articles be retained. Everyone else wants them deleted/merged; the delete pressure for "noncontroversial institutions within [this] major denomination" seems quite strong at the moment. -Joshuapaquin 22:33, 25 June 2006 (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/URJ_Camp_George&oldid=1138752083"