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. Nomination withdrawn. Sufficient sourcing has been found to establish that this camp is notable. Cunard (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Hemshekh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Dubious notability. This was originally tagged for A1 (no context) but has been expanded so that criterion no longer applies. I have been unable to find substantial reliable sources for this summer camp, so I have brought it to AfD. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I found two Reliable sources (actually, the same source, but two different articles) within its References section. The Forward is a Notable source, and presumably a Reliable one. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Delete No included reliable sources, primary links are to facebook/youtube. Primary contributor wants to include links regardless of adherence to policy [1]. While I don't think there is a COI issue, it has a very spammy feel to it. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been offered assistance and guidance without regard for policy, but rather insist on pushing his edits. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep, as I think that there appears to be sufficient notable, verifiable information. However, I am still very opposed to the links to non-notable sources including Facebook & YouTube. Also concerned about Eliscoming's apparent ownership and passion of this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That is correct "Tigerjay". I am trying to explain why the links should not be considered spam.

It is not my fault that there are few sources on the internet. But trust me, they are very reliable. I know these people who wrote the articles, they are very trustworthy. In the coming months there will be a verifiable website which will provide a good chunk of the references. So please admins, I BEG of you, please let my external links pass (Facebook and Youtube) and please do not worry about the "truth" of the article. This is a very important and very personal job I am doing, I would not lie or do something Spammish. I am the one who created and will update this article, I would not pollute it.

Just as a note, "KevinOKeeffe" those are different articles, but published and written by the same person. Also, can one of you admins void the request for deletion. You can view the discussion at my talk page and the Camp Hemshekh Discussion Page.

Thank you all for your time and consideration. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article does describe the distinct and notable characteristics of the camp, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. I'm sure that there is more material available in older publications and the article should be further expanded. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepYes, Alansohn, it does not discuss it YET. The reason I have not been able to do that yet, is because I trying to sort out problems such as this one...

--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2009 (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.