Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel's 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 after a rewrite. Sr13 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mel's Hole

Mel's Hole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The location described in the article has not been seen or documented by a reliable source. The article consists of unsourced, unverified, and apparently unverifiable claims from a single source (Mel), with long forays into the realm of patent nonsense. --Zippy 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable (no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources). In fact, the article itself says right in the summary that "the hole has never been located by anyone else, and none of Mel's claims about it have ever been confirmed". -- Schneelocke 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite This stuff is HILARIOUS.
• Delete. Complete bollocks. BTLizard 08:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Drivel. Palnu 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per BTLizard. Someone's been reading House of Leaves... tomasz. 11:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite Having a look at the discussion page, it seems that the best thing to do would be to rewrite the article as a page about the hoax, rather than treating the hole as possible fact. Nlaporte 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite Same reason as above. It might not be a real thing in itself, but the hoax is of note. --Dan Huby 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep but rewrite Same reason as Nlaporte. Again, since when did scientific credence matter here? If it's a hoax, present it as one, as it's not unheard of for there to be hoaxes here. If anything, it's famous enough that it deserves an entry - even if it needs to be rewritten. --tsal 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hoax. -- int19h 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with major rewrite - Fairly notable, but needs to have a major rewrite done. --Darkstar949 13:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten parts of it, quoting the great man himself. The article makes clear that there's no evidence for this hole outside Mel's testimony. Nick mallory 07:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: if this is kept, it needs to be immediately stubbed and rewritten from scratch properly. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and stubbed the damn thing. Feel free to revert me if you disagree--I just wanted to throw it out there and see what happened if people started from scratch. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable as shown by External Links section --h2g2bob (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly a hoax, but seems notable enough. NB: We've been linked from /. and it's the first post... so keep an eye out. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It appears to be a hoax, but a notable one at that. --Oakshade 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This isn't the first time I've heard of Mel's Hole, and I didn't even know Wikipedia had an article on it until now. It may be bull, but if YTMND gets a page, I don't see why Mel's Hole shouldn't. It is an internet oddity. --Bigdavesmith 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I saw someone mention 'Mel's Hole' on another site - Of course my first reference source was wikipedia. Who cares if it's real or not? Must I remind you that there is also no proof of elves, UFOs, or Harry Potter, yet all of those retain their wikipedia pages. As long as it states that it is of unknown existance, I don't see a problem with it. Urza9814 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a fable, urban legend, made-up story, whatever you might want to call it. Mel is not the only person telling this story--it's a small phenomenon for some people in Washington. Regardless of it being a likely hoax, it is still notable information. I hate to see information removed from Wikipedia. Please just label it as clearly as possible, so it doesn't look like more than a made-up story, and leave the article here for others who will no doubt wish to read up on the phenomenon (and learn that it's a hoax)! (Clearly, I also object to most of the article having been pared down to almost nothing.) Scott Teresi 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 'Mel's Hole is the name of hole claimed to have been found by a man named Mel Waters; according to Waters, the hole is infinitely deep and possesses paranormal powers, including the ability to revive the dead. Despite extensive efforts, the hole has never been located by anyone else, and none of Mel's claims about it have ever been confirmed.' It is the subject of a story in the Seattle Times though so if another serious source can be found then it could be kept and rewritten as an account of the hoax, rather than in the pretence such a ridiculous thing might actually exist. Nick mallory 06:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this article count for anything? It's from some local paper in Idaho. Zagalejo 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of this article discusses Mel's Hole, as well. Zagalejo 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a (hopefully) working link to the Tri City Herald piece mentioned in the article. Zagalejo 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I change my opinion to Keep because it's now well sourced. I added some quotes from Mel taken from the radio show in question, with references, to demonstrate that he actually did make these claims. The talk page of the article said it needed more sources and references substantiating this, so I obliged. Good work there Zagalejo. I've added these sources to the story now. Nick mallory 07:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteWai Hong 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You need a reason. This isn't a vote. Zagalejo 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- has sources, is cited outside itself; may be hoax, but can be atgged as such. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
• Keep, like UFOs and bigfoots, it's notable paranormal hooey. Bigfoot doesn't have to actually exist at the heart of the documented phenomenon. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it is an unsual story but one that is quite notable within its subculture. The very nature of the topic makes it hard to find good references but various editors have tried. If anything, the article just needs to be pared down to the basics. Read the talk page and you'll see that people googling on Mel's Hole do come to the article. The Coast to Coast shows are referenced, although not in the best format. Concerned editors could help the article with edits and reformatting rather than deletion.LiPollis 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, I just now noticed that all the previous sources have been deleted in massive edits. If you go back in the edit history, you will find those sources. Don't you hate when that happens?LiPollis 18:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Oh, so there was a new rule written saying that Wikipedia can't have articles on urban myths and folklore? Well then why don't we just delete the pages about extraterrestrial life and ghosts? PsychoJosh 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with pages about well known hoaxes, fables, myths, and such. The earlier version of this article, that you may have missed, stated that Mel's Hole (the place) was real but had only been seen by Mel. By def, it was based on an unverified source (Mel) and went on for what seemed like pages with additional unverified factual claims. --Zippy 06:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Urban myths and folklore are perfectly legitimate for inclusion. It is irrelevant whether this location is geographically real, all that is important is that the story of it is well known. This is notable and verifiable as a myth. - perfectblue 15:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Ha! Hadn't heard of Mel's hole in some time ... got a chuckle out of it seeing it. It is notable and use to be alot on Coast-to-coast. J. D. Redding 22:58, 26 May 2007 (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.