Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Lambec

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. slakr^\ talk / 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lambec

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

I see an absence of independent sources for notability, as distinguished from mere existence ( I can't judge the book for ref 2, but from the title I doubt it shows more than existence. If it does have any significant information, we should have a quote and page numbers in order to show it. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as run of the mill: at less than 100 acres, this is small for an overnight camp. None of the sources are independent of the churches involved. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though perhaps should be moved to Camping Association of the Presbyteries of Northwestern Pennsylvania, which is the charitable nonprofit that runs this 92-acre camp plus another camp, Westminster Highlands, a 500+ acre camp. I added a bit to the article, including that Guidestar verifies it is a 501c3 organization, although IRS form 990 financial statements are not currently available. Otherwise i would have added financial size info. But this seems long-running, there would be substantial coverage in newspapers and other off-internet sources over the years. --do ncr am 01:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination appears to think that wp:notability is determined by looking at the sources in an article, and admits to making no attempt to review even all of the sources there before starting this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that doncram has the right take on this topic. There are three related topics, two camps and the non-profit. The information says that the non-profit holds title to the 600 acres. While associated with the Synod of the Trinity, the non-profit appears to be an independent organization. The topic is also associated with four of the sixteen presbyteries of the Trinity of the Synod, those being the presbyteries of Beaver/Butler, Kiskiminetas, Lake Erie, and Shenango. Satisfies WP:GNG, and has sixty years of history. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as serving as essentially a advertisement for the camp which has no external notability. See WP:ORG. jps (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent some time on Google and Google scholar trying to find any notability, but was unsuccessful. Ward20 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did not do an extensive search, keep argument are understandable. Found something here [1] possible PR, google books also show several sources. Camp seems to have a solid history and I am not seeing advert tone. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No delete !votes have provided evidence beyond a personal opinion, and only one of the five reports the minimal level of searching specified by WP:BEFORE. Show your work. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I've had a look at the sources referred to by User:Valoem, but I'm only seeing trivial or brief mentions. It might be helpful if some of these supposed sources that help this camp meet the WP:GNG could be noted here, rather than simply asserting they exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your !vote argues an absence of evidence provided by Valoem, but an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Show your work. Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the google books section there are multiple sources. I cannot determine the RS of the sources though. There is one 2000 Guide to ACA-Accredited Camps, stating that this is a listed camp which "meets industry standards for safety, programming, staffing, health care, food service, and more". I am editing from a location where I can not access religious website. Please have a look at these webpage Presbyterian Mission and Syn Trinity (I cannot access them). Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I looked at Google, but I saw very little that was useful for Wikipedia. In Google Scholar, there is a single source, and that is published by a single Presbytery. The only "hook" that this camp is notable would be that the ecology of the camp is unique, as may be seen from several sources at Google Books - but, as far as I can tell, this is the only reliable source that I saw with more than passing mention of the camp. Many of the other book sources are merely listings of where to send one's child to camp, or where to get a summer job as a counsellor. Again, the only possible assertation of notability is its physical environment; the fact that it is a 100-acre wooded camp is just not notable, and in fact is sort of stereotypically mundane. If sources were found, and added to the stub, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per this diff, Bearian is withdrawing from further discussion here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomen, Lankiveil, and Bearian; most listed sources are biased anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources need to be both in depth and independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:GNG actually says is, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (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.