Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Wildwood

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Camp Wildwood}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camp_Wildwood Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Camp Wildwood}})

Unprodded without rationale or improvement. Non-notable summer camp, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - WP:A7 applies as a "commercial or non-commercial organization... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". This article does not do that. WP:G11 might also apply, as an article that's basically a rundown of its features is basically advertisement. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

:*Added comment - As someone who considers WP:ATD quite often in my AFD voting record, I will respectfully state that I disagree with a redirect here. The name "Camp Wildwood" could refer to any number of unnotable organizations, including this one. Why give this one undue weight in the encyclopedia by giving it the redirect? Red Phoenix ^talk 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think the creator is bit confused to be getting so many deletion notices, so I would just note his response to the image that was in the article that is now nominated for deletion at commons was more of a response that belongs here: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wildwood-overnight-camp_blockitemmedium.jpg&diff=368057973&oldid=368057006 Given that the photo has been deleted (although the photo was taken by the camp, and the relevant minors' parents/guardians would have signed permission for the photo of their children to have been taken) this reason for deletion is no longer relevant. However, as to the complaint that the page is not notable enough: it is the Massachusetts Audubon Society's only overnight camp. The Massachusetts Audubon society has its own page, as well as a list of every one of its sanctuaries and camps. And all of those sanctuaries and camps have their own Wiki page–except for Camp Wildwood. Especially if some of the Society's less notable sanctuaries have their own Wiki, Camp Wildwood deserves to have its own.] It's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I thought it should be shared nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Massachusetts Audubon Society. It's not notable on its own, but a little bit could be added to the parent article. Note: it's not true that the society's other sanctuaries and camps all have articles; most just have external links. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This is a difficult topic because "Wildwood" seems to be a common name for a summer camp. For example, Alger Hiss went to a Camp Wildwood in 1918/19 where he developed an interest in birds but that one was in Maine. Note that the New Hampshire one that we're discussing is just called "Wildwood" not "Camp Wildwood". Untangling all this will take time so I'm thinking that making this into a disambiguation/broad page might help. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

::The only place called Wildwood near me is somewhere you absolutely do not want your kids to end up. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The removal of the prod without comment was perfectly in order since it had already been declined for speedy deletion by user:SoWhy with the rationale {{xt|Decline speedy - founded by notable organization, consider merging to its article per WP:ATD-M}}. Far from the author needing to supply a rationale for removal, it is for the nominator here to explain why they have not explored alternatives to deletion as suggested by SoWhy and instead gone straight to a deletion nomination. I'm not in the least surprised to hear that the creator is confused, and is probably rather frustrated too. SpinningSpark 20:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• :The above keep doesn't seem to be based on any WP policy. I did consider merging, but there is zero content in the article which is not simply advertising material for the camp. A redirect would be in order, but nothing viable to merge. Since notability isn't inherited, the fact that this was established by a notable organization is irrelevant. And might I remind folks that as per WP:PROD, when you deprod an article you are supposed to "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• :: "...doesn't seem to be based on any WP policy." Oh really? Are you such a newbie that you don't know how to find the policy from the shortcut. Well let me explain it to you: both WP:ATD-M, as cited by SoWhy, and WP:alternatives to deletion, as explicitly linked by me, are part of the POLICY page WP:Deletion policy—perhaps the most directly relevant policy for an Articles for Deletion debate.

::: You now say you considered merge (you didn't say that in your nom) and that a redirect would be in order. Well I have news for you, redirects are also covered by ATD, and also do not require a deletion debate to execute.

::: "...you are supposed to Explain why you disagree..." That is not exactly what the WP:PROD policy says, there is a bit of cherry picking going on here. What it actually says is "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree..." Besides which, the editor is a complete newbie and cannot reasonably be expected to be familiar with Wikipedia's many rules. You on the other hand, have nearly 400,000 edits spread over six years. I would expect you to at least have heard of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers even if you haven't got round to reading it yet. SpinningSpark 13:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete with the caveat of no redirect. I agree that this camp lacks the depth of coverage required for notability. Since there are several camps named such spread throughout the world and not all run by the same organization, a redirect is inappropriate. Rockphed (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of independent sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.