Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockin' Jump


 * 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. With even distribution of keep and delete votes, there is no clear consensus to delete or keep. Article has already been re-listed twice. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Rockin' Jump

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no evidence of notability; no refs besides mere notices about individual parks -- fails WP:NCORP  DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. I made the article less awful by removing some self-references and adding some WP:RS references about a child getting lost at one location, a sudden shutdown of another franchise, and a municipality revoking the business license of yet another one after some violence. I think there is enough bad news to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Which of those references meets WP:NCORP? I've read them and I don't see any that do.  HighKing++ 15:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I find this rather unfair. Trampoline parks are fairly routine nowadays so they're highly unlikely to generate much coverage in a positive sense. They only generate coverage if something goes wrong. As such, it's really hard for us to maintain a neutral point of view (our sources can't). Is it fair on a business, or its users, to cherry-pick all the things that have gone wrong over the years to create an article that is entirely negative (as we needs must, given the sourcing problem), when the truth is that 99.99% of the subject's business is positive and completely un-notable? It might be more neutral to admit that the business is not notable and delete. At the moment we have the rather unsatisfactory situation of an article that basically says the business exists (and nothing much else) but bases this on sources whose message wasn't "it exists", but was "it messed up", so we're not really summarising the sources either. It's a genuine dilemma. To be clear: if a chain of trampoline parks became notable because it was outstandingly bad/unsafe, it would merit an article, but if a chain of trampoline parks is merely a non-notable chain much like every other chain, going about its normal business and happens to acquire a few articles on mishaps because that's the nature of the business, then in my view it remains rather un-notable. Elemimele (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. A chain with 41 locations feels big enough to merit an article to me. NemesisAT (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to whatever guideline you're referring to that lists "enough coverage" and "XX locations" as being part of the criteria for notability?  HighKing++ 15:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for estblishing notability. Not even close. The references are all based on announcements (fails WP:ORDING) with no in-depth coverage (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or fail WP:ILLCON.  HighKing++ 15:14, 22 October 2021 (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.