Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rock-afire Explosion (2nd nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rock-afire Explosion
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG failure. This article just reads like some stupid creepypasta. There are no sources that support this separate coverage from the restaurant. And all these stories of fires are completely unsourced as this "Hydrillium" claim. All of the sources in the article are primary, including the fan documentary of dubious notoriety. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, essentially per the last AFD, in which additional sources were found. The "band" has actually become more notable since then, including seven weeks performing live (or as live as they can get) with Cee-lo Green in Vegas.  And showed up with the Aquabats too.  I'm not sure I get what you mean about the article being "stupid creepypasta", could you explain that part? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Parts of it read like it's some sort of spooky campfire story, particularly the parts that are entirely unsourced.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the whole article but don't see anything written as a "story" or anything spooky, unless the idea of animatronics in general is enough to scare you. Can you quote the specific text you're referring to? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Parts of the "Current status" section seem fabricated. Much of the article still relies on primary souces which in themselves do not support notability.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What parts do you think are fabricated? Specifics please.  I see some material in that section that is arguably somewhat overly-detailed (though not atypically so for WP) but nothing that suggests it's false.  If you mean the warehouse accident, that's certainly true and made news in the Orlando area: link another link and even nationally: Huffington Post. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That event was something that stuck out as something hard to believe, yes.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly non-notable and written by someone with a COI]. Sources provided are severely deficient in that they are only 4, and absolutely non-reliable. The language is unencyclopaedic. Perhaps a small mention in the Showbiz Pizza Place article is merited, but not more than that in my opinion. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but in need of massive edits. It's clear that the band itself and its creation are notable, as it had a life before and after its Showbiz affiliation, but the present state is not up to Wiki standards. (Sadly, I was the nominal author of a much earlier, much more well written and comprehensive version of this article). A poorly written article does not warrant deletion, however.66.60.251.120 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But there is no evidence presently that suggests this animatronic display meets Wikipedia's standards on notability.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was the centerpiece of a massively successful restaurant chain and became the impetus for that chain's rebranding in the early 1990s. Arcades were a common entity in the 80s; the combination of food and robots was what set Showbiz apart from other arcades, and Rockafire were those robots. Additionally, were it not for Fecter's refusal to sell licensing rights, we wouldn't have Chuck-e-Cheez, which itself has become a byword for children's entertainment in the US.66.60.251.120 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, far from being a "creepypasta," the stories about Fechter conducting weird fuel experiments and blowing up a building are true; it's actually responsible for destroying the last Rock-afire show. Like yourself, I was dubious; unlike yourself, I performed a quick search of Oralando news sites and was able to find confirmation.66.60.251.120 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was the center piece of a restaurant chain. If anything that information should be on the page about the restaurant chain. There's no need for all this exposition on an animatronic display at a restaurant that went out of business. And the fuel experiment but doesn't at all seem relevant to the discussion of the animatronics. No sources say that any remaining animatronics were destroyed as the article claims. This is an unprofessionally written fan page masquerading as an encyclopedic article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company source crediting the band with the brand's success is compelling. Anyone else suspicious that the most aggressive voice for deletion lived in the vicinity of one of the article's main subjects? I smell a COI.76.31.249.221 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable third party source which does not support notability. Of course the company is going to say it was important. And what the hell are you talking about? How can I have a conflict of interest because I allegedly lived near something or someone?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Er... it looks like the source the guy is referencing is a quote from an employee in a newspaper article. Are you actually reading any of the sourced articles? (One of them about the explosion does reference the destroyed robots, BTW).66.60.251.120 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That supports the fact that an explosion happened but not that the robotic band is notable separately from the restaurants they used to be found in. None of hte sources in the article that meet the requirements at WP:RS are about the animatronics.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The restaurant (long defunct) and band (which still exists) have established themselves as independent entities. It also should allow the article to get into details about the engineering, where a restaurant's article should be about, well, pizza. tapo (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources that establish the independent notability of this topic from that of the restaurant?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A full length documentary was produced about the band, not the pizza place. It was reviewed by USA Today and VH1. http://www.rockafiremovie.com/ tapo (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have the reviews of the movie then?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was able to dig this up http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2009/11/rock-afire-explosion-best-movie-ive-seen-all-year-really/ tapo (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to load this page whatsoever.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay this link works instead.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two weeks on and we have, essentially, only one strong voice for deletion, who also happens to be the one to start the vote in the first place. Can an editor go ahead and end the vote so we can stop arguing here and focus more energy on improving the article?66.60.251.120 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. Its a discussion on whether or not it meets internal criteria for inclusion.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A discussion in which you must realize by this point you're the only passionate voice advocating for deletion.66.60.251.120 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A discussion where there was another advocate for deletion and a bunch of people without accounts, or who have not participated in the website in some time, who have not provided any evidence to the contrary of the reason for deletion, and in one case a false accusation of there being a conflict of interest. No one advocating for retention has provided any reliable sources that suggest the animatronic band itself is notable. Just YouTube videos showing performances have happened or references to an indepentent documentary which is the primary source of the information in the article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not just some "animatronic" band, it's a strongly embedded memory for multiple generations who were in awe as kids watching the band come to life in front of them. The technology was notable as being state of the art at the time. They didn't just exist at Showbiz Pizza, they lived on at other establishments after Showbiz closed, such as Circus Pizza where I grew up on them here in Minnesota. They were still new and notable to be over a decade later. There were two different versions of the band, and they were reused for ones that were converted to Chuck E. Cheese characters. There's a documentary about the band itself, people use their free time to create new music for the band, including the creator himself, and they make multiple cameos and references in music and entertainment, most notable being Electric Feel, by the popular band MGMT. Just because you personally don't care and are probably too young to have been impacted by its existance doesn't mean you have to wage a war against something that many people do find notable as a part of history. There are a LOT less notable articles abound on Wikipedia, it always bewilders me when someone on a high horse forges a crusade against something for seemingly no reason except that they can.Kiwisoup (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You all keep saying this shit but there are no sources to back up your claims of this robot kid's party thing's notability.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an article on the history as seen on Spin: http://www.spin.com/articles/masters-puppets-rock-afire-explosion-story/. Here's an article on Wired: http://www.wired.com/2008/08/showbiz-pizzas/. Here is a list of links to critic reviews of the documentary: http://www.rockafiremovie.com/press.php. These include reputable news sources such as this one from USA Today: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2009/11/rock-afire-explosion-best-movie-ive-seen-all-year-really/1#.VBCHh_ldV8E. The band and creator still get local news coverage such as these stories: http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/5/28/dr_phillips_versus_a.html. or http://www.nashvillescene.com/countrylife/archives/2013/01/31/what-you-missed-the-rock-afire-explosions-reunion-tour. Here's the music video from popular band MGMT featuring the band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZexg8sxyk. Maybe put more effort into improving the article rather than deleting it. There's no need to swear and get all angry, coming off totally biased doesn't help your case.Kiwisoup (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another new story from another reputable news source: http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/bloggytown/downtown-orlando-warehouse-that-housed-rockafire-explosion-animatronic-band-blows-up/. Why would all of these reputable news sources run articles about something that wasn't notable?Kiwisoup (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2014 (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.