Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkler (ride)

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. I accept the judgement of OParalyzerx, whom I consider the expert here for this subject. The keep !vote is essentially saying, it will be notable some day, but a keep for that reason is not based on policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkler (ride)

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

Non-notable amusement park ride. All existing references are self-published by the park. Google News search produces only one relevant source (COASTER-net), but I'm not sure how reliable it is. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be one of those cases where self-published information is acceptable but the fact that self-published information is in there is concerning. The ride is still under construction which means this page can wait until proper reviews placed in reliable secondary sources are available. The images used are copyrighted as well and the images should be tagged for deletion as well. There is not enough information at this time to give a thorough breakdown of the ride.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need to delete this article since it has all the information correct for this ride and it is up-to-date. When construction starts more information will come in... Since there are lots of new rides opening in 2012 (including this one) there is no need to delete because it is not opened yet and nothing has happened yet!--Jpp858 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have been heavily involved in editing Holiday World articles over the past couple months, there is really no notability to Sparkler, especially long-term. The ride should be referenced in a list of swing rides, which it has been, just as other non-notable rides of the same type are listed together. Beyond that there is nothing significant about Sparkler that sets it apart from other swing rides of that type. For that reason alone, I am in favor of deleting this article. I do not believe sources to be an issue, especially considering the ride has not opened yet and information used from the park's website is factual and statistical in nature. I do not believe the images to be an issue either. They can both be claimed under fair use: the logo and the concept art, which is considered promotional material. Although the images themselves I do not believe to be a problem, the fact they would not be used in any article is, and they should therefore be deleted as well. OParalyzerx (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2011 (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.