Talk:Seven Gates of Hell

Seven Gates of Hell was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 9, 2007	Articles for deletion	Deleted
September 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 31, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that, according to legend, a wooded area in Hellam Township, Pennsylvania, is home to seven gates that lead directly to hell?

Current status: Former good article nominee

1200s

Given the location, the date above has to be a typo. Should it read 1800s?

Delete

??? What is the delete thing above from? Victuallers (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this Nov 2007 AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven gates of hell? I can't see the version that was deleted after that AfD, but even in the current state of the article, notability of its subject appears borderline to me. The coverage is mostly from local newspapers only, except for about half a page worth of coverage in Weird Pennsylvania book[1]. For now the topic has the appearance of a fairly minor local urban legend and the article still looks to me to be a possible AfD target. If there are more non-local sources covering the topic, they need to be added. Nsk92 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Please see WP:RS (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) and WP:Close paraphrasing

"Others say that, completely unrelated to the asylum story, an eccentric physician who lived on the property built several gates along a path deep into the forest."

vs.

"... to an eccentric local doctor who erected a large gate at the entrance to his property, and rumors sprang up that there was a series of gates beyond that one along a road leading deep into the woods"

from the second source, which is not reliable because it uses Wikipedia as a reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is so far from the source (if the source doesn't have it from us) that copyright is a red herring. As to plagiarism, this has come up in several places and people generally seem to agree that it's not plagiarism. See WT:Did you know#Seven Gates of Hell and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Another plagiarism problem.

Moreover, the close paraphrasing template only detracts from the more serious concern that the source is relatively unreliable under the most optimistic interpretation and that some circularity seems to be involved. (Since it's a dynamic URL we can't use the Internet Archive to settle this.) Therefore I am now removing the template. Hans Adler 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

FYI the source mentioned above is reliable, as it only mentions that there is a wikipedia article on the matter. Since the source was already there before I wrote the article, it references the deleted article on the matter, Seven gates of hell. The source is a township website, and I believe it is a fair assumption to say that they heard of the legend and did some fact checking themselves. I am removing the tag. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the deleted article, so I may be missing something. But the source is only borderline reliable anyway, and if the source is based in part on a version of the article that was deleted as an "original research essay", then that's exactly the kind of circular sourcing that we must avoid. Hans Adler 22:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not. It simply says that there is a Wikipedia article on the subject. It doesn't take any information from the page, just acknowledges it is there. By the way, how is the source borderline reliable. It is a government source, which I thought were generally considered reliable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempts to read the sourced article 1. is met with a login requirement, so this source should be deemed unreliable and removed. Offeiriad (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]