Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson's Underworld

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 delete. Sandstein 08:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's Underworld

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:ROTM haunted house in Jackson, Michigan that fails WP:GNG. The voluminous references are all local, WP:ROUTINE coverage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog the Bounty Hunter and Alice Cooper have come, most of the news articles aren’t announcements and Jackson’s Underworld is widely known, just like Erebus Haunted House which is displayed on Wikipedia, with only local coverage. CardFume (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else tried to get this removed from Wikipedia when it was originally created and their removal was closed because it had enough coverage and reliable sources. CardFume (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CardFume: Diff please? No logs for this page or previous AfD that I can see. Ah, you might be referring to this, which only indicates that the article wasn't eligible for speedy deletion. It can still be eligible for deletion at WP:AFD even if it's not eligible for speedy deletion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the article looks packed with sources, actually looking at them show that many are not reliable, secondary sources, and the majority are just from the same handful of extremely local news sources. The arguments above that it is notable because a notable person has visited does not establish notability per WP:NOTINHERITED, and the argument that there are articles on similar attractions is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Searching for additional sources just turns up the same kind of routine coverage in very local sources, and nothing that would indicate that it has any notability outside of the community it is in. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It sounds like a great attraction, it might be useful on WikiVoyage (I don't know their policies) for Jackson [1], but the article does not meet WP guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 10 October 2020 (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.