Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Snow Hole


 * 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. I'll resist the temptation to say "per WP:SNOWHOLE" (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Snow Hole

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

An utterly non-notable hole in the Earth. And I'm being quite literal in that description. CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There appear to have been two scientific journal articles written about it, as crazy as that sounds. That makes this a phenomenon satisfying WP:N, well distinguished from other holes in the Earth of its sort. Ray  Talk 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per RayAyang. Notable subject, already well referenced. Ikip (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the journals make it notable, though it needs citations. --neon white talk 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom . I'm not convinced that the two citations are 100% genuine; the 1819 article (pp 337-345, not 331-332 as cited) just has one sentence about the hole (on p 349) as part of a general survey of the geology of the area (the article is entitled "Sketch of the Minerology and Geology of the Vicinity of Williams' College", not as cited), and, although Prof Dewey did contribute an article to the AJS in 1822 , it's about a completely different area.  The modern citations are just points on a map, with no evidence of independent notability. Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, the 1822 reference is genuine - .  Dewey says "in a few years they will doubtless be known only as the places in which snow used to be preserved through the year."  Well, 186 years - more than a few, by any definition - have come and gone.  Is the hole still notable?  I'm not sure, and am therefore revising my opinion to Neutral . Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've found the primary article  - [1822] 4: 331-332, which explains the error in the original citation.  I'm still not sure that a hole becomes notable because a politician found it interesting the best part of 200 years ago, but - we have sources to prove it, at least. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A summary of the situation. Dewey mentioned the hole in passing in a longer geological article, Dearborn knew of the hole and wrote a letter to the AJS on the subject, the AJS published the letter because it was written by _Dearborn_, Dewey replied with a brief factual correction. Call me perverse, but I'm going back to Weak Delete.  This is, really, a trivial matter that has been preserved due to the fame of one of the participants, rather than a genuinely notable phenomenon. Tevildo (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It's a hole, that has snow in it. Even though it goes through the summer months, it's really not that notable in a encyclopedic stand point. Renaissancee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - As per RayAyang and Ikip. Notable. Needs to be kept.--Sky Attacker (talk) 02:55, 2 May 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.