Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday World & Splashin' Safari

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 KEEP. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday World & Splashin' Safari

As nominator I hereby withdraw my nomination Mlpearc (powwow) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Written as an advertisement, does not conform to a neutral point of view. Excessive amount of intricate detail. It may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information Mlpearc (powwow) 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The person that nominated this article for deletion has a vengeance for this article or something. He has more or less stalked the page after he discovered it a few months ago. Up until that point, not even experienced editors had any problem with it. There is absolutely ZERO reason this article, about a notable mid-to-large-sized regional theme park, should be deleted. It is no different than ANY other article about other theme parks. Whether he thinks it's promotional or not, the article contains WAY too much information to just flat out delete. It has a detailed history, detailed ride list (both active and defunct), and lists notable awards the park has received. If Mlpearc thinks this article is too "promotional" sounding, he can take the time out of his day to fix it to his liking. Deleting a completely worthy, informational, and by (most) standards good article would be completely ridiculous. OParalyzerx (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too think this article should be kept. There is no reason it should be deleted. It is just like any other amusement park article you will find.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Astros4477 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) [stwalkerster|talk] 12:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Per my nom, I stand by my edits and they speak for themselves. I await comments from editors who do not regularly edit amusement park articles. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You shouldn't make a separate bolded delete !vote if you are the nominator. The nomination rationale is automatically understood to be a delete !vote. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominator offers no rationale for deletion, merely cleanup, as proven by the fact that the majority of the nomination rationale is copied and pasted from the {{multiple issues}} tag. The Google News search link above shows 1,890 hits, most of which appear at first glance to be legitimate sources to pass the WP:GNG, including an Italian source on the first page, showing that the park is recognized in other parts of the world as well. Shortening the search term to the more common name of just "Holiday World" brings up over 5,000 hits. This is clearly a notable park. Yes, the article needs cleanup and better sources, but when those sources are available, deletion is not an appropriate action. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - jcgoble3 you are correct, the majority of my statement is from the multiple issue tag I placed on the article but, this discussion is about the article and not on my choice of copy/paste or manual typing. Every word in my statement conveys the issues I see in this article. This article is written like a vacation pamphlet, I would expect to see something like this at a service station or a hotel lobby in the "Local Attractions" pamphlet rack in a neighboring town. Look through these edits I made in January, and is still full of "over information". The article needs to tell about the park not every spot you can buy a corn-dog and a Pepsi. Also, for the record, I do not question it's nobility, I question it's style and direction, in it's present state it belongs in a travel magazine not an encyclopedia. Mlpearc (powwow) 06:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you see a need for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. If the subject is notable, then it should be kept. We do not delete articles merely because they need to be cleaned up. See WP:BEFORE, item C1. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I have already followed section "C" here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives four months ago. The diff is here and it was merely removed here without addressing any of the issues. P.S. Removed by the major contributor.Mlpearc (powwow) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything. WP:BEFORE C1 states simply, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Nowhere does it say anything about AfD being appropriate if cleanup tags are removed. If the issues with the article can be fixed through editing, which can be done in this case, AfD is not appropriate. The fact that cleanup tags were removed does not change that (and, based on the edit summary, they were apparently removed in a good-faith belief that the problems had been fixed). Deletion is reserved for articles that break policies in a way that cannot be fixed through normal editing such as lack of notability. No such issue is present here, and the issues you've raised can be handled by simply improving the article, so deletion is not an appropriate action. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to this book, this was named the world's second best water park. 6 pages in The Cheapskate's Guide to Theme Parks: 25 Of the Most Popular Theme Parks in the United States. A Darwin Awards book. It has the third longest wooden roller coaster. There is also this and lots more available in Google News. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per those above. Sure the article may need to be cleaned up but I don't see that purely as a reason for deletion. Themeparkgc Talk 07:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Themeparkgc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) [stwalkerster|talk] 12:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: When I saw a tweet that the article about our park was marked for deletion - just three days before we opened our 66th season - I expected to see an article packed with personal opinion and superlatives. Instead I read a article longer than past versions, with a few punctuation errors, but factual and fairly straightforward. As much as I'd like to go in and edit this page (as an old-school journalist), I've respected the rule that companies are not to edit their own pages. That said, and assuming this page survives, editors please know you're welcome to contact me for any needed verification and clarification. Oh, and if I may reference an above comment, there's nowhere in the park where "you can buy a Pepsi." Soft drinks are free here. Thank you, HolidayWorldThemePark (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)— HolidayWorldThemePark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Park is very notable, and article can easily be edited to remove any promotional jargon and peacock words. I agree there are too many sources coming from the park's own website (although a number of those come from Amusement Today, which is a reliable source), but again those can be removed and replaced with independent sources. Is it in need of some TLC? Yes. Is it a candidate for deletion? Absolutely not. --McDoob AU 93 05:12, 5 May 2012 (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.