Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well to Hell hoax


 * 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. Been up for 3 weeks and IMHO it's only gonna gain more !Keeps (I personally would've !voted keep but seems kinda pointless after the continued relists so closing as such instead) (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 21:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The Well to Hell hoax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's not that this "well" is a hoax in the Wikipedia sense, but that the references that have been used to make a claim about its notability aren't adequate: podcasts, blogs, etc. are not considered reliable sources of information, and the fact that it was discussed on Snopes isn't evidence of notability (Snopes does its best to debunk every urban legend that has ever existed). The article includes no evidence of this hoax being discussed non-trivially in reliable, independent, published sources with broad readership, and my own search for such sources only turned up more unreliable ones (strangerdimensions.com, disclose.tv, mysteriousuniverse.org, etc.). KDS 4444 Talk  08:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a fairly popular urban legend.  Proving its notability is a little harder than I thought, but I still found multiple sources:  from The Mythology of Supernatural (published by Penguin Group),  from Satanism Today (published by ABC-CLIO),  in the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends (published by ABC-CLIO),  from Pacific Standard, and, finally,  from the Deseret News, which is kind of a repeat of the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends because it's written by Jan Harold Brunvand, who also wrote that book.  Still, it shows that there's significant interest in this urban legend.  There are also additional offline sources listed at bottom of the Snopes entry, such as an article in the Austin American-Statesman.  I think a pretty decent rule of thumb is if Brunvand has written about it, it's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Shawn in Montreal NinjaRobotPirate, and per this article in the Argentine daily newspaper Página/12: Diez años desde que el infierno se posó en LAPA; and a mention at the bottom of this article in the Chilean daily La Tercera: Así es el sonido de uno de los agujeros más profundos de la Tierra. Peter Chastain   [¡habla!]  08:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean per NinjaRobotPirate. I haven't recorded a !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right; apologies for my mistake. Peter Chastain   [¡habla!]  12:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 5 March 2016 (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.