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.  Sandstein  14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SkeptiCamp[edit]

SkeptiCamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Basically a part of the promotional network around Monterey County Skeptics (now deleted). From the article, it looks like the main point is to insert an inappropriate video of a particular presentation. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Skepticamp is not part of a promotional network around Monterey County Skeptics. Its was created by a guy in Colorado, and has spread around the country (and in several other countries), so if it is referenced by some group in California, that would be why. But it is certainly not confined to there. Rjmail (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree the overly large video from the Monterey Skepticamp should be removed, but to say the "main point" of this article is to insert that video is at best confusing. For one thing, this article originally dates from 2012, long before any of that Monterey Skeptics material was added to Wikipedia. There have been over 118 skepticamps since the first one in 2007, so there are lots of better sources and other material that can be added to improve the article. I've passed along some of those to Rjmail and will try to help improve the article myself. --Krelnik (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of the six sources in the article, four are either written or co-written by the founder of the movement. One is local coverage for a single event in Monterey. The sixth mentions the subject only in passing. Indeed, the sum total of what appears in that source is repeated in the article's first sentence. There's not enough here to sustain an article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not completely convinced as to the independence and substance of several of the sources that have since been added to the article, but there's enough good new sourcing for me to withdraw my earlier recommendation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. A good number of the sources are, as you say, indeed passing mentions, or perhaps not entirely independent, particularly the ones specifically dedicated to skepticism. However, there is just enough for me to be inclined to keep the article. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since the initial comments, four more sources including The Gazette (Colorado Springs), Winnipeg Free Press and Scientific American have been added. Other work has been done on the article as well.--Krelnik (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Commencement of Australian skepticamps added & sourced under sub heading Outside the United States. The page is no longer promotional for skepticamp in general or Monterey County Skepticamp in particular. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added two more sources today, from newspapers in Toronto, Canada and Nashua, New Hampshire. --Krelnik (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Right, given the international scope of these conferences, along with coverage in a Scientific American blog (a nationally read source), and combined with nontrivial local coverage ([1][2][3]), I'm inclined to say this is notable under the guidelines at WP:ORG. I've edited the article to remove any direct mention of the Monterey County Skeptics beyond just that a SkeptiCamp has been held in Seaside, California, where they were located. That video has since also been removed (replaced with ((Commons))). Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (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.