Talk:Gindling Hilltop Camp

Fair use rationale for Image:Circlelogo.gif

Image:Circlelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I don't see any outside sources for this article. WP:V requires that everything in WP articles be verifiable by other editors. How can we verify what's in this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair notice: I'm going to start deleting material soon that isn't on the only source we have for this article - the camp's website. All articles on Wikipedia have comply with a core policy, WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While this article did survive an AfD, it still needs to be restricted to verifiable information. There have apparently been a couple of articles about the camp. Those should be added as sources and everything that isn't in a source deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Camp Hess Kramer was previously deleted, but now it's back and it doesn't look any better than it did before. It also suffers from many of the same problems as Gindling Hilltop Camp did prior to the cleanup resulting from its deletion discussion. Is there anything notable about Kramer to make it stand alone? Is there anything viable and notable there at all if all the campcruft, lore, and other generic camp brochure info were to be removed? Kramer is already nearly speedy-deletable. Might be better to write one unified article that can stand on the notability of both instead of two of marginal-at-best sufficient notability each. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm not sure what we'd name the resulting article.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see "Wilshire Boulevard Temple Camps" mentioned in the text. That'd be a fine title, and the ocamp names can be redirects.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Please don't add back old material without finding sources for it. This material is not encyclopedic and does not belong in this project. I suggest that the camp get its own website and host the text there under the GFDL license.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)