Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations

Add links
Source: 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.

All the AfDs in this section have now been individually closed. --Ezeu 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish summer camps and local organizations

Note: The manner in which this vote has now been set up requires that you click on each of the names and place your votes and comments into each one individually.

Two or three days ago User:PZFUN was nominating some Judaism-related articles for deletion during stub-cleaning. Together with mostly summer camps he inexplicably managed to list a number of rather notable Hasidic rebbes. Predictably this led to some nasty finger pointing and name-calling on the administators' noteboard and on AfD itself.

The full helping of bile is here and here.

I am re-listing the articles (minus the rebbes of couse) here in the hope to restore civility. Intentionally no rationale is given why any article might be delete-worthy. Please read the articles and make your statement on the worth of the article itself. Rude remarks and blanket statements are discouraged, those are never helpful. Dr Zak 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I consider it highly impolite at best to remove with a keystroke all the efforts of many, who commented and voted on many of these AfD's. I think the vast majority of the comments were very civil and objective. To start from scratch, tossing away many hours of work by many caring people because there was suspicion of POV or GF on the part of the nominator (which I believe proved to be a false alarm) is simply wrong. Crum375 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I think all the previous noms should be closed as either no consensus, or reopened where they were. -- JJay 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The votes at the various VfD for the articles were going along fine until the Dr. came along. There was absolutely NO acrimony on the voting pages themselves, everything was very civil. The results would have been either "no consensus" or "keep" because enough "keep" votes had already come in. Almost ALL those who voted "keep" gave far more detailed and researched reasons than those who voted "delete". It is puzzling, to say the least, why this new very unusual listing is now needed. Those who have voted on those VfD pages should be informed that this move was taking place. IZAK 03:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the civility, though not necessarily about the potential outcome. Personally I think there should be consistent WP policies about all clubs and organizations and their grouping, if any. But leaving that aside, I totally agree that this re-listing is most improper. The work product invested by people by researching each case and voting, and the ensuing civil discussions, cannot just be tossed aside on someone's whim. Crum375 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all silly, wikipedia is big enough for all of these jewish summer camps. Camps for Jews are an important part of both european and american jewish history. 24.60.163.16 05:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all WP:POINT and never should have happened. PZFUN deserves to be blocked. But now we're here it may be useful to review these cases, as summer camps have intrinsic notability and WP:V problems. JFW | T@lk 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is time to stop the crusade against perfectly non-obtrusive and non-offensive articles about legitimate topics. What is the problem with keeping them? That Wikipedia will be more complete?? Keep them all and let people improve the articles. -- Olve 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason why these shouldn't be merged into ... oooh, lets say Jewish summer camps and local organizations. A paragraph mentioning what they generally have in common (constituency, activities, staffing), and then a list with locations and any truly important distinctions noted there. -- GWO
    • GWO: It's simple, because there are too many of them, they are very diverse, and they have different histories and facts surrounding them. Basically all the information about them would not fit into a normal page. IZAK 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of them are unique, but a lot are basically the same. Camp Galil, Camp Gesher, Camp Miriam -- are these really more different than they are similar? Their differences could easily be summarised in a list / table at Habonim Dror summer camps. Much of the additional information is completely superfluous. I mean, do we really need to know where Camp Geshers flagpole is, or how many baseball diamonds each camp has? -- GWO
        • GWO: Obviously we are not focusing on the "flagpoles", the point is not just what you and I may think of these camps, it's obvious that there are plenty of other readers who are delighted to get this information and anything else that can be added to it in the years to come. In the USA going to summer camp is almost a way of life for many Jewish kids, it's part of their fun connection to Judaism in many ways, and it cannot be minimized and should not be trivialized and certainly should not be deleted. Wikipedia's servers can handle it. IZAK 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry. I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia, not a holiday brochure. Playing softball is a way of life for lots of Americans: are we to allow every softball team a page. -- GWO
            • Oh come on GWO: Have you honsetly read all 1,200,000+ articles on Wikipedia? When all the articles about Porn stars and Nudity will go then I can start comparing things here to the Britanicca, but for now, all decent information is more than welcome as far as most people are concerned. IZAK 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm all for including notable pornstars, notable summer camps and notable nudity. But the criteria for inclusion is notability, not usefulness to kids planning their vacations. -- GWO
            • So what it boils down to then is what values to go by, those that value porn stars and nudists (what's notable about filth? -- it's like measuring garbage) or those that value Jewish children (who are inherently precious) and the notable institutions that serve them. IZAK 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Our apologies; we missed the part on the Wikipedia Main Page where Wikipedia's adherence to some interpretation of Judeo-Christian "moral values" was cited. Until it does appear, however, I'm afraid the standards for inclusion for this (or, likely, for any other) encyclopedia will revolve around verifiability and notability before it does any utterly POV-ridden concept such as "values." RGTraynor 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmmm. I'm tempted to register wholesomepedia.org and filthopedia.org, and see which gets more contributors. Pornography is massive influence on world culture -- whether IZAK likes it or not. Jewish summer camps, not so much. -- GWO
  • A really pain-in-the-arse way of going about solving the problem 'if' there was much of one. I only hope that the closing admins also look at the original discussions when considering the result. -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an excellent example of what is wrong with AfD right now. It appears most if not all of these were nominated with no attempt to discuss the problems with these articles on the individual talk pages. Granted, what we have here are a number of summer camps and clubs, which in my opinion fall well short of current inclusion guidelines and the vast majority of them should likely be deleted if you look at them on their merits, independent of the issues surrounding the nominations. Still, if a reasonable effort had been made to discuss these articles individually this whole mess could have possibly been avoided; or at least some civility could have been retained during the AfD process.--Isotope23 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if there is any good way to announce mass nominations of articles. One can discuss the merits of an individual article on a talk page, sure, but what would one do when one goes spring-cleaning with, say, ten summer camps, or student societies or porno starlets? Dr Zak 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No there really isn't a good way... which is why mass noms are not the best idea. I understand the concept if it being easier to look at a bunch of similar articles together... but really, best practice is to individually nominate and discuss each article on its merits. Mass nominations just always end up being acrimonious.--Isotope23 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of articles on American Jewish summer camps appearing on wikipedia, many of do not appear to be very notable: Camp Modin, for one. If these articles are to stay on wikipedia then I would suggest that new articles be made, perhaps one for each US state, in which information about the camps in those areas can be placed, rather than having this huge number pages on camps, most of them not exceeding about 250 words in size. Martinp23 18:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Camp Modin is one of the oldest Jewish camps in the US and was the inspiration for a recent feature film. We need many more articles like this, not less. -- JJay 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that many of these articles are onyl a few hundred words long, and should either be expanded or amalgamated. With all the camps from a state in one article, it will be easier for the reader too compare the camps, and look and Judaism in these areas. The more notable camps shoudl have their articles extended. Camp Agawam is really a tiny article which should be combined with others into a new article. Martinp23 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand them then if you think they need more information. However, I would be happy to see stubs on every camp in the US, even the non-Jewish ones. -- JJay 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping by state is a poor taxonomy, as I see no reason that geographic location (certainly on a scale smaller then "regional") would significantly differentiate them. If anything, group them by ideology/mission. Better yet, have a single article. --Nmagedman 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per WP:BREAK, a Best Current Practice for page development is to start with a single page, to create sections as needed, and to fork those sections off into their own articles as the parent article matures. Here, however, we find a large number of stub articles with little indication of their individual importance. Repeatedly, the argument was made below that the camps are notable because they have been around for many years and have had an impact on many peoples' lives. I accept that argument for the camps as a whole, but see no justification for articles on each individual camp. I therefore propose that the camp articles be merged into e.g. Jewish-American camp movement discussing the significance of these camps (as a whole) on the Jewish-American experience/culture, with sub-sections for each camp indicating how it substantively contributed to or differentiated itself from the rest of the movement. --Nmagedman 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with this - just because they have affected lots of people doesn't make them notable. There are many people in the world, teachers and doctors for example, who have had a HUGE impact on many peoples' lives, but are not considered for Wikipedia. Martinp23 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jewish summer camps do not merely "impact peoples' lives" in the secular sense of "having fun" or whatever. These camps are an integral part of the Jewish cultural experience. They are not just about playing baseball or swimming in the lake. Those things might happen, but the main purpose is to provide a place where Jewish children and youth can affirm their Jewishness in an accepting, positive environment. As such, they are more akin to feminist retreats or GLBT retreats or some other cultural minority that does not always feel accepted or able to be "out" in the greater society. Those of you who did not grow up Jewish in America (or Canada, in the case of some camps) cannot truly understand the experience, anymore that a heterosexual can truly understand what it feels like to be gay in a homophobic society. If these were gay or feminist camps, would we even be having this conversation? Because the pattern of these delete nominations -- and not just camps, there have been others! -- has been to target Jews or Jewish institutions that might not be known in the general public, but are nevertheless as important in the Jewish experience as a lot of other things I've never even heard of that are still here on Wikipedia. Rooster613 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
  • "Going Down The Pub" is an integral part of the "British cultural experience". Doesn't mean my local pub deserves an article. One can write about the importance of Jewish Summer Camps as a social construct without detailing each individual camp. I'd love to see such an article. Of course, writing such an article is hard, and requires research. Merely enumerating and describing each camp is easy, and pointless. Guess which wikipedia got? -- GWO
  • Weak Keep [note: I voted Merge above. Since the thread has grown from there, I'm adding this rather than striking what I have above.] There are at least a couple hundred articles on various summer camps on Wikipedia, not to mention high schools and everybody's pet organization. Personally, I think they are all NN rubbish and have no place in an encyclopedia. However, it is a waste of energy to repeat the "Are summer camps encyclopedic?" debate on each and every camp article on WP. Hash out the debate in a guideline discussion. Once a standard is agreed upon, then sweep through all the camp articles, applying the standard equally. In the meantime, I would not be averse to flagging these (and all) camp articles with {{importance}}. --Nmagedman 08:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is Relative: By any rule of logic, reason, and fairness, one should not short-circuit the system by nominating articles for deletion, when what certain articles may need is improvement and sources, and one needs to step back from one's own mind-set and think of entire groups of articles that may be important in other contexts. I did NOT write the articles on this page up for VfDs but nevertheless if enough people feel that these topics (about Jewish Summer Camps) are important enough to write them up, it must mean that many young parents or campers or people out there WANT to read about them, so that in itself makes these articles worthy of being defended. A lot of the shouting about "notable" is bogus because notability is a relative concept, and as I have stated, when the day comes that Wikipedia will do away with articles about porn stars and nudity I will know that it has become a "real" encyclopedia. Why are Jewish Summer camps "not notable"? They play a major and very significant role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish kids growing up in North America for two months out of every year. Jewish kids love their camp experiences more than they like school. Camp fees for two months are often the equivalent of an entire year's yeshiva or day school tuition, so summer camps are important features of Jewish education and life! In fact it's surprising that there are so few of these articles, there will surely be more by new editors unaware of this fuss who will just write new articles in the future. Sure, the articles are wishy-washy and are obviously often written by people who want to get attention, but how is that different to other areas? Sure, in the Jews and Judaism sections we have articles that need work, is that not true everywhere on Wikipedia? There are editors who have spent hundreds of hours devoted to improving the articles, but they are few in number and it will take time, maybe even years. It is not wise to ignore the broader picture and to not take the long-term view, and "delete on sight". There is now a new self-justifying rationale that one can just skip the "needs improvement" requests on article pages and just put "VfD" on them with the excuse that they just are doing it to "get the attention" of other editors -- "The New Deletionism". To expect action and solutions within days is not realistic. It will take months and years to improve things. Writing and editing takes time, not to mention all the man-hours spent on debates and discussions on talk pages on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has come a long way, and there is a long way to go yet, but we should not let deletionists to throw the baby out with the bathwater with articles in the name of making Wikipedia more "encyclopedic" when in fact, notability is relative, and more caution and care is called for. Wikipedia is not a "finished product", it is definitely a "work of art in progress" and no works of art are produced overnight. IZAK 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy living shit. You really believe that wikipedia will be improved if it discards everything that does not fit your moral code. That's a scary, scary, scary idea. Thank God you're in a minority of one. -- GWO
    • GWO: Who the heck said anything about a "moral code"??? I was citing examples to make a point, that while some people think that porn stars are notable, others do not, and by the same token while some people think that summer camps are important and notable others do not. That's it in a nutshell. If I was truly worried about "moral codes" I would spend my time someplace else other than Wikipedia. I am not detached from reality, so please don't make it sound like that. Not everyone sees things the same way. There all kinds of "encyclopedias" out there, depending on one's interests. IZAK 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • while some people think that porn stars are notable, others do not -- and you're telling me that your railing against porn and nudity (nudity ?!?) isn't based on morals but ... what, exactly? Incidentally, if you think wikipedia's going to become cleanopedia, I suggest you investigate how Bomis makes its money. -- GWO
        • GWO: So you think that Bomis's X-rated history should guide the fate of Wikipedia? Anyhow, it's a poor argument to believe that because Bomis is what it is that therefore Wikipedia is the same. People are free to be moral, immoral, or amoral, but that is also not the point of my argument which you insist on twisting. My point is that "notability" does not have the same meaning or definition in all situations and is not the same for all people, something which should be very obvious but which is often ignored. One could just as clearly say that while some people may think that different species of rare insects may be "notable", for those who couldn't care less about bugs, "bug xyz" crawling in the Mojave Desert is simply not notable -- whereas something that does interest them, like the things that revolve around the education and development of children, such as Summer camps, is extremely notable. My only argument here is that the notion of notability is relative. IZAK 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that "notability" does not have the same meaning or definition in all situations and is not the same for all people, something which should be very obvious but which is often ignored. -- No. Your point is further than that. Your point is that notability is relative, but your concept of it is the one that should apply to wikipedia. i.e. remove the famous, notorious, filthy, obscene, unpleasant-but-widely-known pornstars whom you find so distasteful, but keep the non-famous-but-thoroughly-wholesome summer camps because they're so super-important (at least to the middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest to whom they cater). My point (if I still have one) is that that's hilarious. -- GWO
          • GWO: What may be "hilarious" to you is pathetic to someone else. No need to make fun of "middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest" which I would say could be construed as a very offensive statement or worse, don't you think? Oh my, why do you put words into my mouth. I have never proposed any of the things that you attribute to me. I was pointing to examples of differences of perspective that prove that there can never be a universal standard to guide notability. Not everyone watches or has an interest in porn stars, nor should they, but the only thing that I have maintained is that no-one on Wikipedia or anywhere can decide upon universal rules for notability, nothing more and nothing less, and please do not attribute words to me that I have not stated specifically. IZAK 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • GWO: No need to make fun of "middle-class Jewish boys from the midwest" -- I didn't make fun of them, or even say anything derogatory about them, except to say that an individual camp that caters exclusively to them might not be particularly notable. So take your faux-outrage and implications of anti-semitism and go and write a good article about the cultural importance of Jewish Summer Camps, and fewer descriptions off their individual amenities. -- GWO

Comment - Setting aside dogmatic debates between deletionists and inclusionists, I think that a) the fact that an article is still a stub does not make the topic non-notable; and b) it takes some nerve to nominate for deletion articles that the nominator clearly has no knowledge, and in some cases didn't even read. --Leifern 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keep -- Longhair 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First American-Romanian congregation

Question: Why wasn't the original contributor of this article informed at any point about the votes for deletion? See User talk:Rshamos. Thank you. IZAK 10:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a synagogue :) -- Avi 20:08, 22 May 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.
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 redirect to Zealotry. Sango123 (e) 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biryonim

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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eisner Camp

Anti-Jewish crusade...? Playing the race card, are we? It is a nn summercamp, Jewish or not. 130.225.184.24 10:12, 23 May 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.
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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddush club

Question: Why wasn't the original contributor informed of this vote? It's now on his talk page, see User talk:Nathanm777. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
comment I'll concede that it seems like a very small niche field, but it is an important issue. If anyone could think of a reasonable place to put it, such as in the Yeridat HaDorot article, or the Alcoholism among orthodox Jews article, I'd change my vote to a merge. As it is, however, I see no appropriate place for it other than where it is now. I don't think we should worry too much about it since Wikipedia is not paper. The biggest issue ought to be "is the content stupid and irrelevant," and I htink the answer to taht is definitely no. Avraham 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could be merged with coffee break, and mentioned there as loose a cultural equivalent? HKT 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with kiddush. Delete. This is a slang term and a neologism, though the activity described is prevalent. I am uncertain whether this violates WP:NEO. Personally, I was taken aback when I saw that this had become an article. If "kiddush clubs" are notable, maybe we should have an article about the practice of children playing ball outside of the synagogue on Shabbat, and which Jewish organizations criticize this. I don't think that this meets Wikipedia's notability standards. HKT 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) On second thought, changing my vote to delete. I don't think the content is sufficiently encyclopedic for its own stub, and it doesn't really have a place in the kiddush article. HKT 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First of all, a term is only considered a neologism if it has only recently created. The term "Kiddush club" has been around for a considerably long time, and more significantly, it has been accepted into the lexicon of contemporary Orthodox Judaism. Secondly, it is certainly encyclopedic, being an important and notable cultural phenomenon among synagogue-going American Jews. --DLandTALK 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Kiddush clubs" are simply a shtick used by some people to leave the synagogue earlier, eat earlier, consume liquor, and socialize with friends. This term has not even spread to all or most communities. It is hard for me to appreciate what cultural significance this might have, though I understand why this practice was criticized by the OU. HKT 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with kiddush Delete as per HKT. Ted 22:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widespread and well known cultural phenomenon. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable enough for the OU to take a stance, notable enough to keep. --Yodamace1 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If commentary by the OU is sufficient to establish notability, perhaps we should compose an article about talking during prayers in synagogue and driving to synagogue on Shabbat (both of which have at least as much cultural significance as "kiddush clubs"). HKT 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly as per HKT. This is an encyclopedia, not a almanac of religious (or non-religious) customs. At most, merge with something else. --Shuki 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indeed, this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should have encyclopedic articles about notable cultural phenomena - like this. If you think articles of this sort belong in an almanac, I suggest you find out what an almanac actually is first. --DLandTALK 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merger doesn't make sense. It has little to do with Kiddush really. It is a label for social phemomena that has broader significance. --Metzenberg 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please merger does not make sense either Yuckfoo 19:19, 25 May 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.
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 and redirect (this has already been done). Tyrenius 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Northeast Lakes Region

Question: why wasn't the original creator of this article informed about the votes for deletion? I have now done so, see User talk:Meitavlord2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
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.
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/redirect to North American Federation of Temple Youth.--Ezeu 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region

Question: Why was the original creator of this article not involved about the votes to delete it? It is now on his page, see User talk:CrazyDrumGuy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Jewish Students Society

Question: Why wasn't this article's initial contributor informed about the votes to delete the article? Now it's done, see User talk:Ps0u2166. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)


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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Yavneh

  • Instead of complaining about POV, if there are lines that you think need "removal", why not edit the article? Normally, I would include a link here to the various help pages on editing. However, since you have demonstrated in-depth knowledge of AfD, I assume you already know how to edit. -- JJay 01:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006 (UTC)


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.
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 Keep -- Longhair 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tawonga

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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Miriam


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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Massad

Question: Why was the original creator of this article not notified about the votes to delete. It's now on his page, see User talk:Sens08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Camp Massad is unique as the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada, has been serving the Winnipeg Jewish community for over 50 years, and the article is sourced through links to the Camp Massad website and news articles written about the camp by various Jewish periodicals, all reputable sources. --Darknightonight 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Uniqueness is generally not particularly sufficient. I see that it has been around 50 years which is pretty good, but I'm sure that a lot of ethnic/religious youth groups have also been around that length of time and are not regarded as being notable. I agree that the sources are reliable, but I'm also sure that many regional religous/ethnic group magazines will make a noticeboard section about their youth programs so to speak. What is the size of this camp, for instance. Did it win awards for its social work? At the moment the articel is long but seems to have been inflated by large amounts of material which seems like a camp programme/manual/calendar/schedule.`Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darknightonight created his account the day before this vote took place and has since only edited one page — this one. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He still has very good points, even if he's a new member. 24.66.94.140 20:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not saying that this is the case, but when things like that happen, it offen brings to mind sockpuppetry. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did create my account only yesterday; long time user of this site, first time member. I use Wikipedia as a reference, including looking at the page Camp Massad, an organization I do have some familiarity with. When I saw that Camp Massad was up for deletion, I created this account in order to give some credence to my arguments as to why this article should be kept. I can understand how that can be misconstrued as sock-puppetry, but I assure you it was only done to speak up against efforts to remove this article. --Darknightonight 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous comments regarding camps. Use clean-up tag if article needs improvement. -- JJay 10:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darknightonight, camp is mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [9]. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current incarnation of the article should be adopted by the camp's website, because that's how it reads. This should be an encyclopedia article, not free web space or a parallel to the organisation's website. Keep if and only if the article is rewritten to show, through the use of externally verifiable information sourced from or cited in reliable third-party sources, information pertaining to the history and social/cultural/regional impact of the camp. NOT a detailed play-by-play report of camp life and organisational structure. 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article is very thorough, an important part of the History of the Jews in Canada, and shows the strong connections that the Jews of Canada have with Israel. IZAK 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up' or delete - this article is entirely original research. The topic itself may have notability, but it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like ad, blizzard of information, all WP:NOR, notability uncertain. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primary problems is that this appears to be based off originial research, lacks verifiable information from reliable sources, it doesn't really distinguish the subject from other summer camps that kids have attened for decades, and seems to be pretty close to WP:NOT a webhost. That said, it's quite a well written and formatted article...--Isotope23 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hold a personal bias as a member of the camp, and the original author of this entry, but the reasons to keep this article far outweigh the points to delete it. A run of the mill camp does not have the only synagogue in Winnipeg Beach. The same camp would not be the only Hebrew immersion camp in Western Canada. The same camp would not be the only sleep-away Jewish camp in Manitoba. If this article reads to much like an add, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Per above, and per my own, this article should no doubt be kept, and this ridiculous summer camp crusade should come to an immediate end. Sens08 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I point out that since you wrote this article purely on personal experience, it is in clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research? And please do not use the word crusade, it only serves to make any discussion more heated than it already is. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that it has original research, however while the camp is publicized, the information about it is definitely not. The information on the entry is in no way hearsay. And I use the word crusade for one reason, There are 16 Jewish Camps listed in Wikipedia, 12 are up for deletion. Its hard to beleive its a coincidence. Sens08 21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As before. This is the only Hebrew-immersion camp in Western Canada, mentioned in several stories in The Canadian Jewish News and Jewish Independent, site of Winnipeg Beach's only synagogue (over 50 years old), received grants of $22,500 from The Winnipeg Foundation in 2005, [10], certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps, such as Camp takajo or Woodward Camp, or indeed almost any of the camps in that category, almost all of which are referenced at best by a link to the camp's website. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Hebrew immersion camp seems notable. Delete No more notable than any other summer camp with an angle. Ted 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (changed from keep to delete Ted 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This looks like unique camp, however doesnt differentiate between this Camp Massad and other Camp Massads--Gregorykay 00:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The camp is known through most of North America, though it is a Canadian camp a lot of Americans have attended and are attending. The fact that the small Jewish community of Winnipeg has a summer camp that attracts kids from all over North America is worth keeping. A camp like Camp Massad is unique in its programming and location, therefore the article should be kept so that other people that might hear about it can look at the article and know what the camp is all about.
  • Keep seems notable --Shlomke 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without repeating all the previous information, I agree that camp massad is an important aspect of the Jewish community of Manitoba and Canada. It is a great place for children to connect to their Judaism to help teach about their own religion. It is very important this article stays posted since it discusses the programs and everything that occurs and is very informative on it. This is the most positive information I have seen on one camp in a long time. It is very informative without being too personal. Please consider this for the camp's benefit before you take it down. If need be, i vote edit rather than delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.26.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- I already voted to keep this before, I vote so again -- thank you, DR., for wasting my time by making me do this over and over... Rooster613rooster613Rooster613 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. <Camp Massad of Manitoba deserves as much right to deserve an entry on a global encyclopedia as much as any other organization does. The article was written for the people by the people. It may go against the rules of Wikipedia, but there are tons of other articles with invalid information. the Camp Massad article is ligit because the people who wrote it are active members at the camp.>. 24.76.228.13 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - IP's first edit. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words" as WP:NOT also "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable" This information is verifiable and is not just opinion. 24.79.132.194 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - First AfD edit by this IP. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable in any way, the article is partily a copy-vio, and contains no indication of notability. I could find about a thousand 8-year-old who are mentioned by newspapers, too. That does not mean they should be included on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, i can't believe you guys would take the editing of wikipedia seriously enough to ban the products of the hard work and time spent by the writers of this this aticle. When you speak of something as wideranging as wikipedia, who's to say that one article is more significant than another. This page and this camp are obviously important enough in the lives and history of the many people who have passed through it's gates in the many years this camp has been around. It is also a wonder how those in favor of deleting this article came across it in the first place, and it's a shame that the feelings like these couldn't be used for more constructive purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.136.83 (talk • contribs)
Note - IP's first edit. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of the brand new users seem quite confused about what makes something a legitimate Wikipedia topic, for instance 24.76.228.13 (talk · contribs) and 142.161.26.22 (talk · contribs). This is an encyclopedia. General interest to readers (which is lacking in this topic and this article) is a reason to keep. The "benefit" of an organization is not. And as for slapping a clean-up tag on it, I'm becoming more and more dubious of further inflating the already huge category of useless stubs with cleanup tags that nobody is doing anything about. Go clean it up already, and it'll surely be kept. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Sockdrawer, very poor article quality, next to no assertion of notability. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 and Bishonen. bogdan 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bishonen and User:PZFUN...Scott5114 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much trivial information on a non notable subject. This article is seriously embarrassing to the project. Aspern 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am proud to say that I do in fact "take the editing of wikipedia seriously enough" to want to keep only articles that (a) belong in an encyclopedia and (b) meet Wikipedia policies. Point (a) is debatable for this article; reduced to stub length, it would be like one of 10,000 other harmless little articles on the fringes of notability. Point (b) though, makes me a litle nauseous when I read through this thing: No Original Research and Verifiability, two of Wikipedia's most critical content policies, have been wildly, thoroughly ignored; ignoring those to such a degree inevitably creates conflicts with the third, WP:NPOV, as well. I sympathize with the work that went into this and I encourage the creators to move this material to another website before it is deleted, but this is not material that belongs in Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Although some page about a notable and rather large Jewish summer camp can be kept, I express dismay at the excessive amount of original research that is put into this. A summer camp does require so much information that isn't even going to really concern many people. I suggest a cleam up and a reduction to stub length. - XX55XX 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article provides fun facts and interesting information as well as the actual, technical details of how the camp is run, which makes it entirely unique. It is imperative that it be kept up and running. - Susan & Liat --84.229.46.95 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete rewrite needed - delete for now. I see potential if someone removes the POV and every advertising aspect in this article. It's a close call on notability, but that can be resolved on rewrite. The article is way too long for its purpose and subject matter. This article will be deleted unless someone steps forward and cleans up the mess that is there right now. B.Wind 12:48, 28 May 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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Gesher

Question: Why wasn't the original creator of this article informed about the votes for deletion? Now it's posted at User talk:JamieJones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)

No vote yet. Dr Zak 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as it is, article asserts no notability. Like many of these other articles under AfD, this veers close to copyvio territory and is in desperate need of a rewrite to be encyclopedic. B.Wind 12:55, 28 May 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.
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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Galil

  • Neutral - article is in need of serious rewriting, to eliminate POV and establish encyclopedic form. I'd be tempted to advocate a merge with Habonim Dror, but there's not much "room" in the target article for it (or the other six articles). B.Wind 13:00, 28 May 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.
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Noar

Question: Why was the creator of this article not notified of the votes to delete? He is now, see User talk:Masterpjz9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, as noted by other editor in previous Afd, over 60 years old, one of three camps supported by the Cohen foundation, site of famous 1998 fire as documented in the Pulitzer Prize winning Eagle-Tribune. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not establish notability. --Tom 13:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per MPerel, and for its accurate description of Jewish life in the North Eastern USA during the summers. IZAK 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being old does not establish notability, and since when is 60 years old? This article is almost entirely non-encycloaepdic content. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there are no guidelines for summer camps, I simply don't see anything that distinguishes this particular summer camp.--Isotope23 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As before. Over 60 years old, one of three camps supported by the Cohen foundation, site of famous 1998 fire as documented in the Pulitzer Prize winning Eagle-Tribune, certainly as notable as many of the elementary schools listed on Wikipedia and camps listed in Category:Summer camps, such as Camp takajo or Woodward Camp, or indeed almost any of the camps in that category, almost all of which are referenced at best by a link to the camp's website. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does need to be expanded, but it has been written about in the Eagle-Tribune and explains Jewish summer camp life for children in the northeast US. I would expand it somewhat, but not if it will be deleted. Masterpjz9 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and no place to merge it. Ted 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting opinion. I disagree. Silensor 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per MPerel, quite notable. Silensor 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not about to vote delete yet, but I can't agree with some of the rationales being offered in support of keeping the article. One of three camps supported by the Cohen foundation: why is this notable? I don't think we have an article about the Cohen Foundation. Site of famous 1998 fire: the fire occurred off-season, was confined to only one building and, fortunately, caused no injuries. [19] This is not the stuff of Category:Fires, and I doubt the camp would consider the fact that they had a fire 8 years ago as a justification for listing them in an encyclopedia. In fact, I can find no Internet references to this fire other than three articles in the local newspaper (the one I just mentioned and [20], [21]). Again, that's the local newspaper. I can't find any references to the camp at all in the New York Times or Washington Post archives. Pulitzer Prize winning Eagle-Tribune: Yes, the Eagle-Tribune has won two Pulitzer Prizes, but they had nothing to do with this camp or the fire. I don't think a Pulitzer Prize conveys encyclopedicity to everything a newspaper ever has or will report on. ... I don't know enough about this camp to say it's non-notable, but I don't think the keep voters should exaggerate the importance of the camp and significance of this article. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per tom MarineCorps 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this camp is 60 years old and quite notable Yuckfoo 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not assert notability separating it from other summer camps; no room in Habonim Dror for merge; article in serious need of rewrite to remove POV and establish encyclopedic form. B.Wind 13:04, 28 May 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.
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 List on today's copyright problems log as a copyright violation from here Jude (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Avoda

From Talk:Camp Avoda: This article survived an afd. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda/First for more details. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask you to consider that this discussion is about of the Camp Avoda article, not the merits of other articles on Wikipedia. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was making the point that it might good for this article to be merged into a new article about Jewish Summer Camps in MA - but i did generalise in my last comment Martinp23 19:25, 22 May 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.
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 Keep -- Longhair 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Star Camps

Question: Why wasn't the editor who created this article informed about the votes for deletion? He has been now, see User talk:Mcepitome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Sholom Day Camp


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.
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 to Aleph Zadik Aleph. --Ezeu 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amitiz

Question: Why wasn't this article's first contributor informed about the votes for deletion? Now he has been, see User talk:Ptolme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)
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.
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/Jewish_summer_camps_and_local_organizations&oldid=1068866720"