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 merge to Islands of Adventure. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pteranodon Flyers[edit]

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

unremarkable individual theme park attractions at Islands of Adventure in Orlando, FL which, unlike other attractions at this same park, lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources (beyond brief mentions in simple reviews in tourist guidebooks). Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I am also nominating the following rides from the same park for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Islands of Adventure, but keep as redirect with edit history. Some of the material would be useful to elaborate the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge is reasonable but only for properly referenced material, which is not much at this point.--RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - After plugging the names into search, I was finding tons of reviews on each ride I checked - they just need to be added to the article. I suspect the same will be found for the rest of the rides. Reviews == notability. Plain and simple. If there are concerns about a specific ride, than the list should be splitten up and they should be nominated individual after the appropriate "before" work is done. I can not in good faith nominate a set of articles for deletion when at least one of them has received a lot of coverage. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with your argument is all of it; reviews don't necessarily equal notability. Plain and simple. Any amusement park ride can very easily get reviews, but that doesn't automatically count as significant coverage. I hope no closing admin considers that a valid enough argument to keep. O--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and appropriate sourced content, per lack of enough significant independent reliable coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Islands of Adventure to retain the edit history and a record of the content. As stand-alone articles I agree that they lack notability, however, I'm currently drafting an article which I hope to encompass all of Jurassic Park-related articles (Pteranodon Flyers, Jurassic Park River Adventure (Islands of Adventure) and Jurassic Park Discovery Center). I'm using some of the information covered in these articles for which I can find appropriate sources for. If these articles are merged, can I request the roller coaster and water ride categories remain on the redirect pages as per WP:CAT-R. Thanks Themeparkgc Talk 08:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Islands of Adventure There's no reason to have separate articles, those attractions are simply not notable per se. Dragquennom (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islands of Adventure, do not have the reliable sources for separate encyclopedia articles. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:29, 22 April 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.