Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closed rides and attractions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
I think this article should be deleted, because it has very little information as it is, and there is already an article on closed Disneyland attractions, at List of past Disneyland attractions. There should be separate articles for closed Epcot and Knott's attractions. --Lyght 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. I found a list of 27 closed or demolished amusement parks in Michigan alone [1], with copious information including news articles, archive photographs and histories. This is eminently encyclopedic information and on this evidence there is a lot of it. I added one defunct Michigan amusement park to the list. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Where to start? This can be viewed as anything from just plain theme park-cruft to a sort of memorial. Whatever it is, it's very unencyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Peter's point. Such attractions, if notable enough to be memorialised after they shut down, should be mentioned in the context of their location. A separate entry like this is therefore eminently unencyclopedic. Dottore So 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the above reasons for deletion. Any closed attractions can be mentioned in an article about that location. Should we also have a list of Closed restaurants and diners or Closed playgrounds and parks? Carbonite | Talk 12:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand, as per Tony Sidaway this article has potential and the amusement parks are notable for research and archival purposes regardless if deletionists believe this to be amusementpark-cruft it is still encyclopedic material. Piecraft 01:15, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Keep