Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamite (roller coaster)

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. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite (roller coaster)

[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)

Major case of WP:CRYSTALBALLing. The coaster isn't even open yet. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD of WP:CRYSTALBALL roller coasters:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and a WP:CRYSTALBALL » Shadowowl | talk 18:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning, Computer40, Adog104, Bakazaka, JC7V7DC5768, Chrissymad, Power~enwiki, and Wolfson5: Courtesy ping because you had voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Racers and this article is about a rollercoaster under construction and is created by the same editor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MBlaze Lightning 03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shadowowl. Promotional and WP:CrystalBall JC7V-constructive zone 06:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my Delete vote, this article can be recreated when needed. JC7V-constructive zone 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, when this coaster opens it may become a candidate for an article but for now its too soon. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copperhead Strike. Even more so, this roller coaster has slightly more coverage from reliable sources over the phases of its construction to announcement. For example: ParkErlebnis (Construction November 2017), ParkErlebnis (Construction March 2018), ParkErlebnis (Construction June 2018), ParkErlebnis (announcement), FreiePresse (announcement), Vogtland Anzeiger (Construction April 2018), Dynamite backstory. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be very easy to close this as delete right now, but nobody's responded to User:Adog104's list of sources. Relisting to give people a chance to comment on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The crystal ball policy does not apply as construction is underway. There is sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG even if the project is never finished. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename: Delete per Nom, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I also think that if it were kept, after removing the strange wording that makes it feel like an advert, a renaming would be in order. The article could be renamed Construction of dynamite (roller coaster) (if that's even a notable topic) and could focus with an even stronger emphasis on the construction and lead up to the roller coaster. Just an idea but I'm still leaning more towards deletion.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Tyw7, MBlaze Lightning, Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom, Shadowowl, JC7V7DC5768, AmericanAir88, and Grapefruit17: I went ahead and revamped the article to a better wiki-ed version, and additionally added more sources than I had provided here. Please consider re-reviewing this discussion. Thank you. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adog104, because you've edited the ping, these people never got the ping. I certainly didn't. Wanna try re pinging? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not changing my vote. The main problem, WP:CRYSTALBALL cannot be fixed by any editing. » Shadowowl | talk 00:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. As User:Shadowowl says the concerns of WP:CRYSTALBALL is still there. The page can always be restored after the coaster is constructed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sure thing! :P @Tyw7, MBlaze Lightning, Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom, JC7V7DC5768, AmericanAir88, and Grapefruit17: If this doesn't I'm sorry for my stupidity with pinging. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Although I voted "keep" at AfD/Copperhead Strike, this topic falls into a different category for me. Roller coasters are a dime a dozen anymore, and the mere existence of one does not justify a standalone article. There are thousands of non-notable roller coasters that can exist perfectly fine in their respective amusement park articles, especially when there are no defining characteristics of the ride that distinguishes it from its peers. Even more concerning in this case is that the main amusement park housing the new coaster, Freizeitpark Plohn, doesn't even have its own article. Personally, I would think that should come first. There needs to be some justification as to why this ride can't exist as a 2-3 sentence entry within that article. Realize that in the modern age, just about every new attraction comes in with a big marketing bang in the press and social media, but that type of significant coverage does not mean it merits having a standalone article.
Rides that fail to impact their industry in a significant way (setting records, milestones, etc.) should at best be a discussed as a minor detail in a broader topic, such as the ride manufacturer's article or the amusement park article. Fails WP:GNG on the "Presumed" aspect; Wikipedia is not a travel or amusement park guide or a means of promotion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because it looks like advertising/promotion. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:30, 12 September 2018 (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.