View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Letts

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. early delete votes were weak and the delete side has not sucessfully challenged the sources provided Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Letts

[edit]
Camp Letts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Sadads (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Human interest stories" are in fact significant provided they provide depth are not trivial mentions. You might not like the coverage, but that doesn't make it insignificant.--Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or the coverage might not be interesting or provide the depth needed for an encyclopedia article. These are in the Style and Local sections of the papers. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am deeply troubled by your notion that what look like little more than press releases constititute "significant" coverage. Could you point out the analysis of the topic in these sources? Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Sadads (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...? BLP does not apply to a discussion about the notability of an Article.... Sadads (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. WP:BLP states very clearly "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." You can't just slander someone on a talk page about another topic and claim you're immune to BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate thing to do when confronted with facts that show that a topic is not notable is to change your vote, not to fabricate a charge that I am slandering. The coverage is trivial, and I hope that no amount of pile-on voting will prevent this article from being deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provide any evidence that Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post and Jacob Linger of the Annapolis Capitol wrote "press releases." Otherwise you are slandering them. That's not fabrication. And no. When a topic passes WP:GNG as this one does, I'm not going to change my vote because another editor slandered the reporters of the coverage that establishes notability.--Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When another user says "seems like", that is not saying it is a press release, it is saying that it reads like a press release. WP:AGF. What this means is the coverage is trivial, it is without analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:GNG as a "one sentence mention." The coverage provided here are far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention" and passed WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the triviality from one of the articles "Can we do your hair, Kayla?" a group of 14-year-old girls call out as they head back to Cabin 31 to primp for the biggest night of the session: the camp dance. Kayla's sprawled in a chair in front of the camp office, looking a little sunburned. She's surrounded by counselors showing the telltale signs of "night off" freedom -- lip gloss, lacy tops, jewelry." <---Look at it! Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While not your intent, by reproducing that excerpt from a 2566 page article directly about this topic you are providing evidence of this topic passing WP:GNG. This is in fact part of an in-depth article about the topic. You don't care for the nature of the writing that includes girls at this camp talking about their camp dance, but that doesn't affect it passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the content of the source matters. Why don't you integrate any encyclopedic information from the sources into the article? Instead of claiming that the article passes the GNG, make it pass the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To bring this back to the coverage: this is behind a paywall, but reading the intro it seems very likely that it provides a reasonable enough level of depth, and this one says in the description that it contains 2566 words, which is definitely significant. Both these sources seem reliable, so for me that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There's also another Washington Post article here, but it's not clear if that's significant enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, significance is in the content, not the length. For all we know, the article lists a number of local summer camps. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content of those articles does not supply any meaningful information about the Camp, instead as Abductive has pointed out, they talk about people who are irrelevant to the camp. This camp is simply not notable enough for the articles to provide useful information for Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2010 (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.