Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Park Cable Car


 * 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 on the issue of "keep vs. delete" and no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ocean Park Cable Car

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has no sources and the subject matter isn't likely to be independently notable. It's an attraction at the Ocean Park theme park, and that's a good place for re-writing some sourced material. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Cable cars on this scale are definitely notable. We have many articles on specific attractions inside theme parks (Haunted Mansion, Goliath (Six Flags Magic Mountain) for examples). This topic has received significant coverage, even from The New York Times.  --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough for the NYT to describe it, . Notable enough for the NYT, notable enough for WP. Collect (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ocean Park Hong Kong: While the cable car system meets notability requirements being that it appeared in The New York Times, it does not make sense for it to have its own article if its only purpose is to transport people between areas of an amusement park. Since this article is relatively short and not likely to be expanded being that no one really cares about the cable car system's history or features except for those working or visiting the park, its contents can easily be added as a section of the Ocean Park article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * " if its only purpose is to transport people between areas of an amusement park " What about articles like Disneyland Railroad and ExpressTram? Jeffrey (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the length of those articles. Look at the length of sourced material in this article. When merged and the length of this subject matter in the parent article grows it can break out again and be replaced by a summary section. That's the way topics should get attention and grow. There isn't enough sourced material as of now to justify a stand-alone article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep per Oakshade and Collect. The system is notable and this article got a lot of room for expansion, such as its technical specifications, accidents, demand, arrangements at time of service suspension, and comparisons with the Ocean Express. Jeffrey (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ocean Park Hong Kong per The Legendary Ranger. The stub is four sentences long, and based on the sources there doesn't seem to be much that can be reasonably written about this cable car system. It makes sense to merge this with the theme park it belongs to. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge is the obvious solution. If that unbalances the target article, it clearly needs to be tagged as a stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cable car systems are generally considered to be notable and I can frankly see no reason why this one shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (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.