425:, first it is a series of three distinct proposals, contradictory to one another, none of which are even at the level of consensus, let alone policy. Number three does not apply here since there is no permanent population; it is a camp, not a town. Number one is so broad, and has so many arguments against it in the discussion page of the proposals that I reject it (yes, my opinion, but I am discussing why I don't think this article should be here). A scout camp needs some assertion of notability; the fact that we can verify that it exists is not enough. If that were the case, and notability really doesn't matter at all as to whether to keep or delete articles (which is contrary to consensus as well as pages and pages of Knowledge guidelines) then we need to un-delete the thousands of non-notable bands and singers, etc. that have been deleted based on the notability criteria.
474:, and will not repeat it here. It is unfortunate that this AfD has been started separately as the camp and troop are closely related. In my view neither are notable, but if minimal notability is demonstrated this camp article should be merged into the troop article. Before merging much of it should be removed as advertising and other non-important material. As Ed said on the Troop AfD discussion, the place for these articles in ScoutWiki which actually encourages articles on Troops and camps. --
646:
which I don't see as coving this camp any more than it covers my uncle's farm. (A camp is a single piece of property with one owner, very unlike the towns, villages and hamlets I think this option has in mind.) Further, I don't see the "cited population estimate or range" OPTION 3 would demand. "Obscure content isn't harmful" is merely an essay, and not particularly convincing (IMO) in this case. -
645:
guideline, so I'm not heavily swayed by it to begin with. That said, #1 (actually OPTION 1, one of several propsed guidelines) aims to create a specific exception to general notability; if accepted, we might apply it here. OPTION 2 would fail this article. OPTION 3 aims to cover "any populated place"
497:
In the absence of something remarkable and soundly sourced, a camp for an individual troop is not possibly notable. The problem of how to deal with content of such limited interest is a real one, and is probably best solved by auxiliary wiki of some sort. (I can see it done by having different levels
348:
My reason for supporting deletion is not because it is obscure. The reason is because the article indicates nothing about the site that is notable. This article consists of basically a description of the site, and a description of what it is used for. Nothing notable happens there, or has happened
329:
Knowledge is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't
373:
I'm not sure what is unclear by the guideline I just quoted. The article seems to be verifiable (although I admit it could use some more references, but that's what the fact tag is for, not AfD.) If it is, in fact, not notable in your opinion, what is the harm in keeping the page? As long as all
420:
What you are saying is not at all unclear. However, I disagree with your assertion that anything that is verifiable should be kept. The guideline you quoted is basically saying err on the side of "it is obscure but notable" if there is a question. In this case, there is no question, there is
286:
that indicates this article should be kept. I see no assertion of notability in the article, either from an historical standpoint or a modern one. There seems to be only one real third party source consisting of two articles in the same paper, which is not enough according to the notability
396:
even applies here. That proposed guideline was intended to deal with the question of whether every village or hamlet should have an article. It was never intended to deal with Scout camps. If it does allow Scout camps, then it would allow articles on all individual houses. This is a proposed
594:
any notable content into appropriate council or state article. These articles will continue to be problematic and contentious, and their existence runs counter to the dozens of nn local articles that have already been deleted over Wiki history.
349:
there, and the fact that it is a real place does not mean it is notable. If some evidence of notability can be provided, I would happily change my vote to keep, but as it is, the fact that obscure content isn't harmful is not a reason to keep
727:; I don't believe in salting unless necessary, but it is deletable. The only sources seem to be general land records and small newspaper articles, and a 50 year old camp that's 18 acres just doesn't scream hidden sources.--
397:
guideline and if the folks working on it hear about the suggestion to apply it here to a Scout camp, I suspect they would change the wording to exclude them and make it clear it is about places with a population. --
663:- WOW!!!! The deletionists return. You guys really have it in for any content you don't like. I'll move it to Scoutwiki. (Where I know you think it belongs, right.) Hope you're happy FJB's!!!!
471:
206:
746:
120:
634:
422:
393:
375:
173:
638:
305:
283:
181:
177:
135:
87:
82:
91:
74:
17:
357:
fit within the other criteria of wikipedia, namely the notability criteria, there is no reason to keep this article.
498:
in
Knowledge, but not at our present state of development--we have enough problem dealing with one set of standards.)
777:
600:
378:
proposed guidelines, I'm not sure someone can honestly say that this article should not be included in
Knowledge.
36:
761:
736:
719:
686:
672:
655:
625:
604:
574:
550:
536:
509:
489:
452:
434:
412:
387:
366:
343:
296:
268:
240:
223:
193:
164:
147:
56:
776:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
697:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
374:
the claims in the article are verifiable then this addition to
Knowledge should be left. Further, given the
78:
253:
That is why Ed used the term "!vote" (i.e. not a vote) which is generally used to refer to what you say. --
334:
I encourage editors to embrace a spirit of inclusiveness that
Knowledge otherwise and elsewhere embodies.
633:- This article does not meet general notability guidelines in any way. We then have arguments based upon
304:: I'm really concerned all about the way some of the editors handle the question of notability. Quoting
70:
62:
732:
682:
596:
430:
362:
292:
287:
guidelines. I see no reason to make an exception in this case regarding the notability guidelines.
757:
668:
651:
621:
546:
531:
218:
160:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
728:
678:
567:
482:
448:
426:
405:
383:
358:
339:
288:
261:
236:
189:
143:
209:
but separated by Jheiv. See that AfD for the original deletion rationale and !votes. --â
753:
701:
664:
647:
617:
613:
542:
526:
213:
156:
677:
What deletionists? At least one hardcore inclusionist (DDG) has !voted against this.--
541:
Already did that. I don't want you befouling my article anymore than you already have.
556:
505:
50:
330:
search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.
108:
443:
There is a lot of merit in your response -- they are points well-taken. Thanks.
560:
475:
444:
398:
379:
335:
254:
232:
231:: AfDs are not closed by votes but rather that a consensus has been reached.
185:
139:
155:: Can you please be more specific about the section that you feel applies? -
639:
Knowledge:Notability/Historical/Arguments#Obscure_content_isn.27t_harmful
500:
306:
Knowledge:Notability/Historical/Arguments#Obscure_content_isn.27t_harmful
182:
Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known
522:; if the decision is to delete, I will copy the newer version over. --â
519:
176:
proposed standards #1 and #3, and I would suggest editors review:
770:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
421:
nothing about this location that asserts notability. Regarding
115:
104:
100:
96:
518:
An older version of this article was copied over to
559:. You are not understanding how wikipedia works. --
134:: Per Knowledge's Historical Notability Guideline:
747:list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
780:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
635:Knowledge:Notability_(Geographic_locations)
423:Knowledge:Notability_(Geographic_locations)
394:Knowledge:Notability_(Geographic_locations)
376:Knowledge:Notability_(Geographic_locations)
174:Knowledge:Notability_(Geographic_locations)
127:The notability of the camp is in question.
284:Knowledge:Notability/Historical/Arguments
136:Knowledge:Notability/Historical/Arguments
745:: This debate has been included in the
616:this is unquestionably non-notable.
172:: I would say that the article meets
7:
24:
205:This was originally listed with
138:. This seems pretty clear cut.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
641:. "Geographic locations" is a
1:
318:Obscure content isn't harmful
178:Obscure content isn't harmful
762:21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
737:19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
720:18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
687:19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
673:17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
656:13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
626:06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
605:02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
575:09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
555:It is not your article. See
551:00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
537:00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
510:22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
490:21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
453:18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
435:13:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
413:21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
388:20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
367:20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
344:19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
297:19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
269:21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
241:19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
224:19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
194:19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
165:19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
148:19:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
57:03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
797:
698:Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1
472:Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1
207:Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1
773:Please do not modify it.
392:I am not convinced that
32:Please do not modify it.
470:. I gave my opinion at
590:and salt, if possible
696:see also related AfD
353:content. Since this
612:and add a pinch of
597:Chris (ăŻăȘăč âą ăăŁăă)
71:Hawk Mountain Camp
63:Hawk Mountain Camp
44:The result was
764:
750:
418:Response to Jheiv
282:I see nothing in
788:
775:
751:
741:
717:
714:
711:
708:
572:
565:
529:
487:
480:
410:
403:
266:
259:
216:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
796:
795:
791:
790:
789:
787:
786:
785:
784:
778:deletion review
771:
715:
712:
709:
706:
568:
561:
527:
483:
476:
406:
399:
262:
255:
214:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
794:
792:
783:
782:
766:
765:
739:
722:
702:Andrew Lenahan
691:
690:
689:
658:
637:#1 and #3 and
628:
607:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
528:Gadget850Â (Ed)
513:
512:
492:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
438:
437:
371:
370:
369:
332:
323:
322:
321:
320:
312:
311:
310:
309:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
246:
245:
244:
243:
215:Gadget850Â (Ed)
199:
198:
197:
196:
167:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
793:
781:
779:
774:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
748:
744:
740:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
721:
718:
703:
699:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
662:
659:
657:
653:
649:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
606:
602:
598:
593:
589:
586:
585:
576:
573:
571:
566:
564:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:
538:
535:
533:
532:
530:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
502:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
481:
479:
473:
469:
466:
465:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
416:
415:
414:
411:
409:
404:
402:
395:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
331:
327:
326:
325:
324:
319:
316:
315:
314:
313:
307:
303:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
278:
277:
270:
267:
265:
260:
258:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
222:
220:
219:
217:
208:
204:
201:
200:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
772:
769:
742:
724:
705:
693:
660:
642:
630:
609:
591:
587:
570:(Discussion)
569:
562:
524:
523:
499:
494:
485:(Discussion)
484:
477:
467:
417:
408:(Discussion)
407:
400:
354:
350:
328:
317:
301:
279:
264:(Discussion)
263:
256:
228:
211:
210:
202:
169:
152:
131:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
351:non-notable
729:Prosfilaes
679:Prosfilaes
427:Theseeker4
359:Theseeker4
289:Theseeker4
754:Raven1977
665:Jmpenzone
648:SummerPhD
618:JBsupreme
543:Jmpenzone
520:ScoutWiki
157:SummerPhD
643:proposed
355:does not
121:View log
614:WP:SALT
302:Comment
229:Comment
203:comment
170:Comment
153:Comment
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
725:Delete
694:Delete
661:Delete
631:Delete
610:Delete
588:delete
557:WP:OWN
495:Delete
468:Delete
280:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
46:delete
592:merge
563:Bduke
478:Bduke
445:Jheiv
401:Bduke
380:Jheiv
336:Jheiv
257:Bduke
233:Jheiv
186:Jheiv
140:Jheiv
119:) â (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
758:talk
743:Note
733:talk
683:talk
669:talk
652:talk
622:talk
601:talk
547:talk
506:talk
449:talk
431:talk
384:talk
363:talk
340:talk
293:talk
237:talk
190:talk
180:and
161:talk
144:talk
132:Keep
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
752:--
749:.
713:bli
501:DGG
184:.
760:)
735:)
716:nd
710:ar
707:St
704:-
700:.
685:)
671:)
654:)
624:)
603:)
549:)
534:-
525:â
508:)
451:)
433:)
386:)
365:)
342:)
295:)
239:)
221:-
212:â
192:)
163:)
146:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
756:(
731:(
681:(
667:(
650:(
620:(
599:(
545:(
504:(
447:(
429:(
382:(
361:(
338:(
308::
291:(
235:(
188:(
159:(
142:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.