Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilcoo Camp (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcoo Camp

[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)

There is no notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kilcoo hosts Camp Awakening (established as a "camp within a camp") which has received substantial amounts of significant coverage in reliable sources: 1 2 3. "Camp Awakening" basically is Kilcoo so coverage of one is coverage of the other. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no mention of "Camp Awakening" in the article and it appears the "Camp Awakening" is an entirely separate organization which places the participating boys at Kilcoo and the girls in a different place. As such, this organization fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that Camp Awakening isn't mentioned in the article - the standard for deletion is what the article could be, not what it is. FOARP (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Camp Awakening" "basically is Kilcoo" and "coverage of one is coverage of the other" and therefore Kilcoo should be notable because Camp Awakening is notable. But the only references you provide to support what you say actually don't say anything of the sort. Camp Awakening is an entirely different organization - different people, different website. There is nothing in the Kilcoo article about this Camp and nothing in the Kilcoo website either. Notwitstanding that notability is not inherited, you are reaching a conclusion not supported from the cited sources. On its own merits, Kilcoo Camp fails the tests for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This reference calls Camp Awakening a "Camp within a camp" at Camp Kilcoo that "shares the facilities with mainstream campers" - i.e., they're the same thing. The separate camp you refer to is the girl's camp, which started involvement with Camp Awakening a number of years after the boy's camp. This reference states that "The program is divided into a boys camp and a girls camp — seven kids in each — with the boys staged out of Kilcoo Camp in Minden". The television coverage on Roger's TV linked above begins with a shot of the "Camp Kilcoo" sign and covers the camp. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we actually had an article about Camp Awakening, then this could be mentioned in and redirected there. But they're not the same thing for the purposes of establishing that Camp Kilcoo is notable enough for an article — Kilcoo is a camp facility, while Awakening is an organization that organizes a camping event held at Camp Kilcoo. But notability is not inherited, so the fact that a potentially more notable organization uses Kilcoo as a venue is not a notability freebie that exempts Kilcoo from having to have reliable source coverage about Kilcoo. This is the same as the reason why the camp facility where I used to do Boy Scouts camp in the summer is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because the Boy Scouts themselves are — the camp isn't itself the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear a Wikipedia notability standard, and just because the camp's events included regional Boy Scout camp week doesn't make them the same thing as the Boy Scouts themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 15 January 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.