Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timanous (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 NO CONSENSUS. Spinning Spark 07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timanous

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

Some pretty heavy bias and lack of references. No one seems to want to help edit the page either. Mfribbs (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article barely even establishes notability for this summer camp. Most of the sources are either non-independent (the most often cited source is an offline publication co-written by the camp's co-owner), or broken links. And most of the article is unsourced anyway. The article is not much improved from how it was when it was last up for deletion in 2006 (the result then was "no consensus"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if this article winds up being kept (which could well happen), it should be moved (at that time) to Camp Timanous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that article would appropriately be listed as "Camp Timanous" (as seen elsewhere on this page, I vote to keep). --Crogle94 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am one of the article's primary authors and originators (although I have sought to avoid a proprietary stake in this as I believe Wikipedia is best served when open-sourced). There are compelling reasons for preserving this article

Longevity: Timanous has existed for over 125 years, and continues to operate consistent with original institution
Popular influence: Timanous has thousands of living alumni, aside from the famous alumni listed on the page
History and Heritage: Timanous is plainly an example of the longstanding New England and Maine summer cultural and camping tradition. Aside from its perseverance, Timanous was founded by and operated by Luther Gulick, one of the established originators in Maine camping
Economic impact: this could be better stated in the article itself, but Maine camping and tourism industry is crucial to the Maine economy and preserving it matters; Timanous is, again, a well-established example and member of that industry.
Comparative value vis-a-vis similar Wikipedia pages: Timanous has long been a more comprehensive and detailed page than peer institutions
Broader concern with targeting camping pages for deletion, not improvement: I am concerned in noting that several other Maine camp pages have been recently offered for deletion. I suggest, again, that Maine and New England sleepaway summer camps are an important element of American tradition and history.

Crogle94 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is chock full of original research and dead links. I don't get it. What's so notable? Bearian (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I don't know if I'm allowed to take part in the discussion since I made this page, but here goes. Crogle94 -- it's great that the camp has all those traits and stuff, but why should it be in an encyclopedia? Just because the thing is 100 years old doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. I think, though, if you do want to keep it, you have to start editing the page. It's very biased and doesn't have many resources in it. Do you know how to use references, because the article doesn't refer to many using a superscript. Mfribbs (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're definitely allowed to take part in the discussion by making additional comments, but I struck out the "delete" above because your delete recommendation as the nominator is already being taken into account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mfribbs, I appreciate your above advice. I notice that you've both nominated this page for deletion, but spent a great deal of time and energy contributing to the Camp Agawam article (a peer institution) and that you likely rescued that article from deletion. That page is much improved and is a credit to your good work. I am familiar with Camp Agawam and consider it an integral part of the mosaic of New England camping heritage and tradition. I request that you consider Timanous to merit the same due diligence. In the last two days, I have begun overhauling and streamlining the page. Most obviously, I have edited dead links and I have added 3 bona fide, legitimate sources explicitly detailing or referring to Timanous and its cultural role: the Burlington Free Press, Boston Globe, and Washington Post. Over the next couple of days, i intend to add further sources, including episodes of Nightline and the Portland Press Herald. I intend to incorporate several of the major camping publications, dating back over 100 years, the refer or reference Timanous. Your rationale for keeping the Camp Agawam article was as follows: "There are, as I know of, approx. 7 resources. The article is much more expanded now than it was when it was proposed for deletion. I think if this article is deleted, than most of the camp articles in Maine should be as well. Also to note, I have several other sources that are notable when it comes time to add them to the article." This same rationale would apply to the Timanous article, except that there are now at least 9 resources cited, with more on the way. As editing will continue, I request that this discussion be tabled to allow for continued good work. Thank you.Crogle94 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, Crole94 this means that the page can be moved to your userspace where you can work on it without the specter of this deletion discussion hanging over your head. J04n(talk page) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up; the references have been somewhat improved (probably enabling the article to meet WP:GNG), but the article also needs to meet WP:NPOV. Miniapolis 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Userfy - I'm not convinced the current sources are enough to substantiate notability. Unfortunately, most of the arguments made for keeping the article so far are straight from the list of arguments for avoid during deletion discussions. Things like longevity, comparison to other subjects with WP articles, alumni and economic impact. While these things might help generate coverage, it's still the coverage we need to substantiate notability, not the things that might theoretically be covered in that coverage, if that makes sense. That said (if it made any sense), I'm inclined to think the long history of the camp mean it would have received coverage prior to the era of the internet. If such coverage could be substantiated then I think we'd get over the line. As such, I'd have no problem with userfication until such times as those sources can be found/added. I'm at weak delete because I think there's some room to assume good faith that such sources might be added soon and so temporarily userfying this until then might not be in the best interests of WP. TLDR - technically fails, can probably be fixed, happy if consensus is that it shouldn't temporarily be deleted. Stalwart111 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stalwart111, these are helpful comments and appreciated as I plainly endeavor to incorporate the diverse sources into a coherent whole. The subject of the article is not one that routinely creates "news" (here, perhaps, is a good reason to consider peer-class summer camp articles) which hinders the ability to find sources that are useful from The New York Times or similar periodicals, although during the 125 years of the camp, I have found useful, reliable, and on-point sources including: Nightline, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald, scholarly references from the likes of Gary Paul Nabhan, and literary references from the likes of Samuel Pickering, Jr.. Many of these have now been incorporated into the article, substantiating and documenting the subject's notability. Deadlinks and other technical flaws have been eradicated. Concerns about POV are being addressed through editing and steady incorporation of reliable, objectively independent sources (consistent with WP guidelines). While this process is ongoing, I believe that the significant enhancement of the article, in the direction you've already recognized, further merits its continued inclusion in wikipedia.Crogle94 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks cleaned up. I think it should be kept but the process of cleaning it up should definitely continue. Referencing isn't as much of an issue as it was when I nominated the page for deletion. Mfribbs (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for further improvement. I have a feeling the camp is notable, but you can't tell it from the current references. The book contains just a passing mention, and what look like significant media articles are impossible to evaluate due to paywalls. I would encourage the article's author to find more sources that can be visualized (it isn't a requirement that a source be readable online, but it is very helpful in cases of disputed notability). I would also encourage them to trim or delete the detailed information about the camp's program and daily schedule, focusing more on the history and on what third parties have said about it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - userfication is acceptable to me, too. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Lots of helpful ideas and commentary on this discussion, and I think the article has benefited from it. I'd like commenters to please consider the Camp Timanous article vis-a-vis peer articles, particularly Summer camps in Maine. Keeping in mind that comparisons are merely tools for evaluating an article's worthiness, I suggest that the Camp Timanous article's notability, POV, reliability, accuracy, and technical formatting put it and the Camp Agawam article at the top of this particular heap. In the past two weeks, sourcing, technical flaws, notability, and overall quality have been addressed. Can you compare the Maine summer camp articles, delete the Timanous page, but ignore the rest? That seems frustratingly inconsistent; the peer articles are littered with the very errors that have been excised from the Camp Timanous articles: too few (sometimes zero) reliable or independent sources; little more than assertions of notability; rambling written style (including first person experiences and thoughts); little integration into larger Wikipedia; inconsistent care-taking and editing; etc. Should the whole category and its articles be deleted? As I noted earlier, I still suggest retaining the Timanous page, but instead of userfying, let the improved page serve as an accessible standard for peer institution articles Crogle94 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (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.