Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pole of Cold


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pole of Cold

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced original research. None of the sources cited use the term, nor can I find any. Article defines Pole of Cold as the places in the Northern and Southern hemispheres where the lowest air temperatures were recorded. Google Scholar shows a few hits, however papers are not often cited, and most are from before 1940. News shows about the same, lots of old articles. As well as [Books]. The term seems to be a pissing contest on where the coldest temperature was recorded, as if that's something to be proud of. Sourced information could possibly be merged into List of weather records. - Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep.  Pissing contest or not, the term is quite used. The lowest temperature on Earth is most certainly of note, not less than the Centre of Europe. As for "unreferenced" or "original" this is certainly misjudgement: the article is bare facts, with some references. May be not enough, but the info (names, places, temperatures) is most certainly verifiable. And plenty of refs in google. You searched it in wrong places. It is certainly not "news". See google books instead.  - 7-bubёn >t 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There do seem to be a few references to "Pole of Cold" or "Cold Pole" about - such as, , , , it does seem not to be a neoligism.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A reasonably well-known term with almost 20,000 ghits. I can see no obvious reason to delete this. Anaxial (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination is self-contradictory and fails to establish a reason for removal. AFAIK, age is insufficient justification for deletion (see WP:NTEMP). –  7 4   23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a quick search would have shown that this is a well established concept. The article needs work but that's no reason to delete it. andy (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (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.