Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenge of the Mummy (Florida)


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Revenge of the Mummy (Florida)

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

The article has multiple problems:
 * It does not cite any references or sources.
 * It only has one section - an overly long plot summary.
 * The important details seen in the infobox and lead are unreferenced, and therefore may not be accurate.

I believe that these strong problems make it questionable for the article to be kept. I hereby propose it for deletion. Comments?--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. All problems described can be fixed by editing, rather than deletion.  There are plenty of sources available for this highly notable ride at a major theme park (, Frommer's Walt Disney World & Orlando with Kids (Wiley 2006),  , etc.), and all the other problems are trivially fixed. JulesH (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should be possible to improve this article and its sourcing to bring it up to the standards of wikipedia's other articles on roller coasters.  Of the deletion reasons proposed, the only one that would be a valid deletion reason per policy would be if it were impossible to find reliable sources on the subject -- I see no reason to believe that's the case.  Baileypalblue (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep an AfD is a last resort only. Per: Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE: Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved. Potential, not just current state In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort. References are adequate to save article from deletion.travb (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable ride at major theme park. -Atmoz (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. All the issues the nom describes are things that should be addressed through editing. - Mgm|(talk) 00:32, 15 January 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.