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 List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions. Merge and redirect per consensus. Individual pages may not be notable, that has not been established here. tedder (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Swamp Thing Set[edit]

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

Notability has not been established in this article on an unremarkable theme park attraction, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources and is based on original research. I am also nominating these related articles for the same reason. Additionally, these articles have been tagged with reference maintenance tags for 1-4 years, any references or external links in these articles are to blogs, vacation videos posted on YouTube or similar sources or questionable reliability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them Thoroughly non-notable, no reliable sources. The ones that are more than one or two sentences long look like a mess of original research. Anything interesting that could be said about these attractions could be put in the articles about the movies/shows that inspired them or in a list of attractions at Universal Studios, if reliable sources could be found. -- Donald Albury 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions to retain the edit history and a record of the content. If this discussion is closed with a consensus to merge and redirect, I'll be willing to do so, similar to what I did after a similar discussion. Themeparkgc Talk 22:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Merge and redirect what exactly? These articles are composed completely of original research or questionable sources. Now that you bring it up, List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions is largely made up of original research as well. It looks to be salvageable though, unlike these articles.

Delete abscence of reliable sources for the moment. Only if some reliable sources are added to an article, it can be merge and redirect. (sorry for the two votes it is quite difficult to express a point of view for so much articles which can evolves differently during this process) User:Themeparkgc seems to want to help, I suggest that if he wants, when there is no sources, he can keep some of the articles in an user sandbox page and try to find reliable sources to justify a merging to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions.--Crazy runner (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Themeparkgc. I expect that sourcing is available to verify basic facts of the material that can be added post merge. For example, this article can be used to verify the existence of the Alfred Hitchock attraction, and that it was replaced by the Shrek attraction. Themeparkgc has already stated he is willing to do the merge. I am willing to assist in referencing if he needs assistance in that area. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 4 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Whpq. There's evidence that it's not completely original research; there is verifiable material worth preserving. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a merge would be a fine outcome but only what can be referenced per CrazyRunner. However, WP:EXISTENCE != notability and only 1 reference has been mentioned in this AFD and only in the context of existence. The expectation that sources exist even for basic facts isn't enough. Any articles that cant be referenced should be simply redirected without significant merge. --RadioFan (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Merging content does not require that the source article meet notability. After all, if it did, by definition, it could be kept as a standalone article instead of merging. The fact that only one source has been put forward is because I've not put any effort into sourcing all of this material that has been put forth in a mass nomination. I've already declared that I am willing to help source and merge material. -- Whpq (talk) 10:18, 18 May 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, Baseball Watcher 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per reasons of original nominator. I am also against a merge/redirect for other editors' stated reasons. The list has problems, and the individual entities that would be merged are not notable and unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't 23 days enough to discover references for the remaining articles that haven't already been merged and redirected? Can we get this AFD closed please? RadioFan (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since this discussion hasn't been closed yet I haven't worked on merging any of the articles yet. Once the AfD is closed, and if the result is to merge and redirect, then that is what Whpq and I will do. Themeparkgc Talk 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have stepped forward and volunteered their time to work on sourcing the relevant merged content, and I think the collegial thing to do would be to let them do that, but I can understand their reluctance to get started while the articles in question are still under threat of deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is exaclty why I haven't spent any additional time sourcing these articles. If the AFD closes with a consensus to merge, I will spend the time to source and merge the material as appropriate, but I'm not willing to put the effort in to do this work if will all just be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. I don't know if there's much good information there to merge in, but I definitely think a redirect is worthwhile. There's absolutely no good reason why these articles should be deleted outright instead of redirected if two editors have already volunteered to go to the trouble of doing it. The argument that they shouldn't be merged/redirected because there are no reliable sources is irrelevant... at the very worst, if there really are no reliable sources that can be found, there may be nothing to merge, but that still doesn't mean the articles can't be redirected -- this isn't a copyvio we're talking about where the history has to be eliminated. ----Smeazel (talk) 03:50, 25 May 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, -- Cirt (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted, to gain a better assessment of consensus from community for merge, delete, or redirect - at this point in time consensus is not yet apparent for which one to do. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with similar caveats that others have expressed that only verifiable information be merged to the List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions target article. Given the very simple nature of the information presented in the target article, I suspect that verifiable information sufficient to include in the target will not be impossible to come by for all of these articles (although perhaps for some). Props to those volunteering to execute what looks like a tedious and difficult merge. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support a very selective merge with only verifiable content being merged. RadioFan (talk) 17:11, 27 May 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.