Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bare Butt Hill


 * 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. Does not meet WP:N; no coverage in reliable sources'''. Tan     39  16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bare Butt Hill

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy and Prod both declined. Non-notable nudist location with (as the author admits) only one source to be found. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no in depth reliable sources whatsoever, aside from a book serving as a directory of naturist places. - Icewedge (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not advertising. Advertising indicates that some benefit or profit is to be gained by the posting. In this case, neither is true. The land is public and therefore no profit or benefit is gained by putting it in wiki. I have posted a verifiable source and only factual information about the site. Perhaps you could be more clear in your objection and tell me how the information is not factual, nor verifiable, nor unbiased. If you are wanting a published research study to substantiate the claim that this place exists, there will not be one forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas1138us (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Local slang for a local wilderness spot, there is nothing encyclopedic about this. Article creation could have been driven by some kind of social networking, which is a form of advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my short time on wiki, I see lots of people appealing to the word "encyclopedic" incorrectly as a basis for protest. Brevity does not mean a topic is not "encyclopedic." The criticism of "local slang" is meaningless -- it is the chosen name for the site.  I did not name it.  Simply because notability is emerging or recently recognized does not disqualify existence.  Similarly, because items are new it does not mean they do not exist.  A photo of a sign over the entrance is as meaningless in this case, but that appears to be where this is headed in order to qualify for inclusion. The last criticism, that "Article creation could have been driven by some kind of social networking, which is a form of advertising," is speculation.  I would pose the reverse - that the social networking would follow the existence of the site.  That there is a social network about it should lend credence, not borrow it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas1138us (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's notability policy instead of trying to guess about what's happening here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the notability guidelines that would preclude this entry that is of factual basis . Rather, the only objections to this article as yet remain based in opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas1138us (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article offers no evidence this location, under this name, has gotten wide and significant coverage through independent reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I edited the page to improve readability, including formatting w/ bullet points, combining multiple separated paragraphs in the same post by the same user, and changing spacing. No content was removed or edited in any way. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all verifiable places are inherently notable. --Polaron | Talk 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability. Fails WP:RS.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability demonstrated by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.