Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bothell Hell House


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bothell Hell House

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No lasting coverage, barely any coverage initially from RS, and not independently notable.  Sounder Bruce  04:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Sounder  Bruce  04:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Citations to local TV news, Woodinville Weekly and iTV News show clearly WP:SENSATIONAL stories and not serious, in-depth analysis. As for the rest: Den of Geek, Scientific Establishment of Parapsychology, Coast to Coast AM, Supernatural Magazine, American Supernatural, Travel Channel's "My Horror Stories", Liminal Earth and Phenomenal Magazine are not WP:FRIND independent WP:RS. The Salon citation doesn't mention the subject at all. This may deserve one or two non-credulous sentences at List of reportedly haunted locations but it's not ready for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the sources cited aren't considered reliable. This could perhaps be a few lines in an article about the town/location where the building is, it's more of a "local lore" story than anything else. Frankly I wonder if the TV show just makes up things. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete SounderBruce and others should let the reader decide what's considered reliable and unreliable. News articles, TV Media(Travel channel)., books written by independent authors are good source material for an individual reader to decide what's reliable and nonreliable. PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED based on skepticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macqdor (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete I'm not sure why deleting this WIKI is up for discussion. There are almost more verifiable links on this WIKI page than all the other poltergeist WIKi pages combined. This case is most recent as far as reports, news articles, interviews, TV shows, etc goes.  The case did receive international attention as stated in the WIKI.  Skepticism and validity from a skeptic should not be reasons why a page is deleted.  There is no self-promotion going. Just references to the story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macqdor (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate KEEP vote. You can only Vote once in an AFD. Feel free to comment, however. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreliable sources. Agree this possibly warrants merger into an article about the location/area. Paul W (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:21, 25 February 2022 (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.