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. Since the comments mention the others, I'll note that this is the fourth of the five similar discussions that I'm closing. The first three were varied in terms of result, but this is one is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Interlaken: there is a complaint about the multiple nominations and a general assertion about the notability of Jewish summer camps in general, but a distinct lack of sources brought forward to support the notability of this specific camp. As with that earlier discussion, when non-policy Keep arguments go up against policy-standard "lack of sources" Delete arguments, the result is typically going to be deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Deer Run[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A WP:BEFORE search has rendered no reliable sourcing for this camp. It is promotional and lacks secondary sources./ AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:

--Doncram (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Two of those five have been closed "Keep", overriding the skeptical comments of persons also commenting negatively here, and the one closed "Delete" will be contested with its closer and/or at Deletion Review. Two are still open. IMHO, these AFDs are really unhelpful. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations); i have seen other campaigns too. I don't get the interest in deleting these. Are you against summer camps for children of military families where one or more parents are actively serviing (Operation Purple Heart)???? It can be appropriate to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely was covered in newspapers when it was operational because of its obvious public benefit/public interest nature. Once notable, always notable, too. IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to judge each camp on it's own against WP:N, and that's what we are doing. Your argument might equally apply to elementary schools, but we don't tend to keep as they often don't meet WP:GNG. High schools tend to be kept, because they do tend to meet WP:GNG. In neither case do we lower our requirement for sources into Gazetteer/Geoland territory.----Pontificalibus 05:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I searched newspaper archives but found no significant coverage. Lots of trivial mentions "local girl attends camp". I found one 250 word article in the Poughkeepsie Journal from 1962 but it's basically just a plug from the camp co-ordinator listing the summer activities.----Pontificalibus 05:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found some coverage about camps called Deer Run in Newspapers.com, but it will take time to work out where the camps are located (Texas, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York ...), and how much coverage relates to these particular camps (why two in one article?). Per WP:NEXIST, the state of sourcing within an article is not a reason to delete, and the nominator does not indicate that they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE, particularly in historical sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Number 5 7 15:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i get where you are coming from. You want to punish the article/original creator/editors involved now, for not immediately fixing up the article to your standards, though there is evidence that sources do exist. Well, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2019 (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.