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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kettlebowl[edit]

Kettlebowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not so sure this subject is notable. Its a hill with snow. Yes it has received minor coverage from its local town newspaper, but is that really sufficient to meet the notability bar? JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Places do have it easier than other subjects, as far as notability is concerned. But I agree, a local ski area with fewer than 4,000 patrons during a season? Seems thin. I'll dig around a bit later. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It does seem to meet WP:GNG andWP:RS, but does seem trivial. RadManCF (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any problems with this article. It contains multiple reliable independent sources to prove it meets the general notability guideline - so what if they aren't the New York Times! It's written neutrally by an unbiased person. Why would it matter how many people visit it? It's not like ski hills in Wisconsin are open year around - maybe for a few months. I argue that any non-private ski hill with sufficient independent sources should be kept. Royalbroil 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The coverage is in-depth and from independent reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:GNG. Hills with snow can be notable just like anything else. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.