Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney's Wonderland


 * 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 merge to Wonderland Sydney. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sydney's Wonderland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is about a proposed amusement park that never eventuated. Website last updated in June 2015. Maleidstone (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, all sources are trivial. There is no establishment of notability. ~RAM (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  07:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge Redirect - page should be redirected merged to Wonderland Sydney as a valid alternative to deletion with a new short section on proposals to reopen the park. The material about the revised park is sourced and true, and it would be entirely appropriate to redirect to that page even if there is no consensus to keep this page. Deletion is a lazy option here and inappropriate in light of there being a valid alternative. Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - revised to merge in light of Doncram's valid point below. Deus et lex (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect - per Deus et lex JarrahTree 05:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge is the proper AFD result, reflecting fact that the article has sources and substantial content that can/should be edited into the version of the Wonderland Sydney article existing before this AFD. "Redirect" would be unduly dismissive to editors of this article, and would give inappropriate permission to closer to merely redirect. Closer instead should follow AFD closing procedure to state that a proper merger is needed, if they do not themselves want to make that further effort. Thank you to Deus et lex for identifying this appropriate alternative to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Doncram. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - the probability of this development dwindles with each successive year; if/when it is green-lit, it can be split off. Given there are RS that discuss the project, there is some encyclopedic content here but not enough at present to merit a separate page. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  03:36, 24 January 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.