Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Eye


 * 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   delete. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Eye

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article on a proposed structure/business. Even the one source cited uses "iffy" wording like "may", "could", etc. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anything stable is underway, it's simply an idea floating around in a crystal ball. Normally I wouldn't AfD an article this new, but the facts seems to speak for themselves, and addition of further sources reporting that the proposal "might" lead to something "if" approved aren't going to help anything. After construction has begun, maybe this article could be encyclopedic. I thought about speedily deleting this, but it's not entirely clear that this counts as a non-notable "organization" per se, though of course an amusement park won't build itself. Another issue is that the article is really about a proposed amusement park with other features, not just about the proposed giant ferris wheel. PS: Interestingly, the creator's talk page consists of almost nothing but CSD/AFD deletion notices, but almost half of the articles in question were actually kept. Kind of an editorial tightrope walker. :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I was able to find several non-trivial, independent sources that cover this Ferris wheel even over and above what the original editor has included in the article. It seems that its notability has be sufficiently established in my opinion. Topher385 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:N isn't the only active guideline here, and there's a policy matter that outranks it: WP:NOT. Regardless of some local media coverage, it's still the amusement-parkish equivalent of "So-and-so's forthcoming third album" or "Next constitution of Elbonia"; we routinely delete this stuff per WP:NOT, regardless how much buzz there may be about the possibility of it happening, because it's not encyclopedic until a) it happens, or b) some controversy about, or other event surrounding, it becomes notable in and of itself (and then the article should focus on the controversy or whatever, not the allegedly forthcoming widget). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Source rebuttal: Here's a quote from one of the additional local/regional sources added (from the local Fox TV affiliate): "Circle Entertainment [the would-be developer], in filings with the Security[sic] and Exchange Commission, indicated closing on the deal will take place by January 1, 2012." This actually supports my nomination for deletion as blatant prediction, since it indicates that there isn't even a stable financial, zoning or other fact to rely on, only involved parties' expectations about a proposed deal and the milestones it has to cross to become a reality. Here's more, from an article : The plan "cleared its first hurdle when Orange County's Development Review Committee gave preliminary approval with conditions to plans for [it]....'probably in the neighborhood of a $100 million project'....The next stop for the development will be the Orange County Commission." Lots of maybes, no certainties, not even about the proposed budget. The other "new" piece actually clearly cannibalizes the Fox report, repeating most of its points but without any of the attribution nor any of the ifs and caveats, just recasting all the possibilities as if they were certainties; tt is not actually a reliable source at all. The other source is a single paragraph that tells the same story, but is dated March of this year, indicating that the facts (and the lack of any of them firming up) have apparently not changed in five months, with the exception of a single favorable "preliminary review", a "first hurdle". I have nothing against the project, it's simply isn't encyclopedic until it is at least certainly happening and being worked on, not just being talked about as a "maybe". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per point 5 of WP:CRYSTAL MadCow257 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice to recreation when it is actually constructed. I would have suggested a merge to List of Orlando, Florida attractions, but the attraction is merely in the planning stages and could fall through.  Once construction begins, it might be fair to add it to such a list, but having its own article right now, predicting its details and expected visitors is WP:CRYSTAL. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (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.