Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howl-O-Scream (Tampa Bay)


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Howl-O-Scream (Tampa Bay)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Several editors have tried valiantly to add sources to this article, but after removing the primary sources, the one with the dead link and the one that didn't actually say what the article suggested it did, it remains with nothing to establish its notability. I have previously suggested merging this with the other Howl-O-Scream articles, because they may be notable as a franchise, but there has been no consensus. otherlleft 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems a shame to delete so much hard work but this article simply doesn't provide any basis for a claim of notability. If work could be done to highlight the notability I'd revisit my vote.  I also wouldn't object to a merge to some other relevant article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The event was named number 1 by Haunt World Magazine, and the article has as much potential as that of Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando).--Snowman Guy (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept, maybe it can be written in a different from than to copy the same list of haunted houses over and over and over... Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal to standardize haunted attraction articles, and you're welcome to participate!--otherlleft 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sections for 2002 until 2007 on the HHN article are written in this form rather then the listing. It don't think it would be hard to rewrite the HOS article in this style.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It is impossible to get this "article" sourced. A merge to the main article might work as well. Tavix | Talk  22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

"*Comment There are times when it's appropriate to use primary sources? I respect your opinion on matters like this and would like to know more.  My own view is that swamping an entry with primary sources (like this one was before I removed them) makes it much, much tougher to figure out if anything notable is being discussed.--otherlleft 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The facts of an article such as this can perfectly well be sourced to primary sources connected with the event, which are reliable for routine details, so I do not see a problem with V. But I am not really convinced it & the other mentioned do  not both fail NOT DIRECTORY, at least in their extremely expanded forms.    DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.