Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surprise Lake Camp

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise Lake Camp

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

No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously meets GNG. Is someone going through a category of summer camps and nominating every one of them for deletion, without looking? --doncram 13:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You may need to be reminded that WP:AGF has not been suspended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may need to be reminded that WP:BEFORE has not been suspended. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This article already has multiple reliable sources, including discussions in scholarly works that discuss it as one of the two or three oldest Jewish summer camps in the United States; it is one of a small number of long-lived Jewish agencies whose archives are the subject of a program directed by YIVO (the Institute for Jewish Research) to preserve the historical record of Jewish settlement in New York. The nominator has been putting up a lot of old camps for AfD, but in this case the nomination is offensive, as well as ill-considered. -Arxiloxos (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're taking offence at AfD nominations, perhaps you need to step back from Wikipedia until you regain a sense of perspective. Meanwhile, while there is undoubtedly a plethora of reliable citations in the article, there is no evidence of the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A great amount a coverage on this topic by secondary sources, all culminate to significant. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A "great amount" of trivial overage does not get interpreted as significant coverage. (Feel free to cite a relevant pert of WP:GNG if you think I'm wrong). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG's example of "trivial" coverage is a "one sentence mention" of a topic in a piece about another. Most of these are far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention." --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 12 May 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.