 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Comment edit
This page was deleted once because someone felt it was "advertising".
Please don't do that again.
This is a non-profit, community run ski area. It is a significant geographic feature. It is one of the main winter activities for hundreds of people who live near here.
By comparison, this wikipedia page, Heavenly Ski Resort gives a lot of extensive details about a commercial enterprise. If anyone would like to discuss why the Heavenly page is not advertising and why this one is, I would be happy to entertain that discussion, but please don't delete this page again.
Comment 2 edit
Ok, now someone has marked this page as potentially 'not notable' and is threatening to delete it. I think it is notable. How do we resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckennagene (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Notability edit
Notability is not a matter of opinion, it is determined by the notability guidelines. In summary, The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)
The one on-line reference just mentions the ski area in passing which is not sufficient. I found passing mentions in the Chicago Daily Herald and Cleveland Plain Dealer, but that is all they are: passing mentions. The fact that the Ski Area is a non profit organisation makes no difference in Wikipedia terms. The Heavenly Mountain Resort does read like an advert and I have tagged it as such. However it does appear to be notable as being the largest and highest ski resort in California. Hope this helps. Some of the details such as how to get there and address, etc. are not encyclopaedic and should be removed. They would be more appropriate for an article on Wikitravel. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Notability edit
Thanks for the information about how you made your determination. It would certainly be more helpful if that information were given initially so that one could know how to respond.
While I understand the organization that operates the ski hill may not meet the notability guidelines documented there, I don't think that is the relevant standard.
The notability guidelines say nothing about notability of a geographic feature. The area known as Kettlebowl, in addition to being a ski hill is part of the Wisconsin Ice Age Trail and is mentioned in at least two separate hiking books published in Wisconsin and Illinois, listed in the references section.
As the guidelines for notability are silent on the subject of geographic features, one could infer that the standard for geographic features would seem to be much lower based on the large number of Wikipedia pages dedicated to less notable points. An example might be many of the 100-odd neighborhoods of San Francisco, such as these:
- Fine the artcile should be chnaged to be about the geographocal featuer - at the moment it appears to be entirely about a ski area. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll work on that a bit but I think a ski area is a geographical feature, so I'm not sure we'll see eye to eye on what constitutes success here. Perhaps you could propose some notability guidelines for geographic features, recreation areas, and/or ski hills and see what other folks think? Mckennagene (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you also added this to the Ice Age Trail article. Since the IAT is a hiking trail, it's not clear how a ski area is especially notable since the trail crosses a lot of recreational areas of one kind or another. Presumably it's a geologic feature so it may be more notable for that reason, but you created a "points of interest" section and just put in Kettlebowl, so if it's notable it shouldn't be the only point of interest listed. MDuchek (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- This article satisfies the core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, plus it's well-cited. Notability is not policy. Leave this editor alone and let him improve the encyclopedia. - Draeco (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is about a recreational site that has been operating for over 50 years. Tens of thousands of visitors have been there, and it must employ dozens of people. I think it's notable enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- This article is notable it has multiple effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies and history. It contains verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. Standards should not be used to create a bias favoring just the larger organizations.--ChubsterII (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is about a recreational site that has been operating for over 50 years. Tens of thousands of visitors have been there, and it must employ dozens of people. I think it's notable enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)