Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trimper's Haunted House


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Trimper's Haunted House

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable amusement ride. Dough4872 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence or even claim of notability. JJL (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep claims of notability provided by references. And if you give the article some time, I will try and build this article to meet Wikipedia standards.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No, there aren't any claims of notability provided by the references, because they're all published by the creator of the ride and/or the amusement park themselves (violating WP:SPS) (the YouTube video can't even come close to counting). The building of the article Sky Attacker has been doing seems to mostly consist of adding advertising and unsourced personal opinions (e.g.: "[Bill Tracy is] the greatest designer and builder of dark attractions the amusement park industry has ever seen"; "It is believed that thanks to the Trimper family, the attraction will be able to be enjoyed by visitors for decades to come"; etc.). I don't see any improvements appearing here. --Miskwito (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advertising at all. e.g.: "[Bill Tracy is] the greatest designer and builder of dark attractions the amusement park industry has ever seen"; "It is believed that thanks to the Trimper family, the attraction will be able to be enjoyed by visitors for decades to come"; etc. is all cited from reference 1.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep per multiple brief mentions in newspapers, and a few other sources.  both prove it exists.  indicates that it is a dark place.  talks a little about the influences of its construction.  is an unreliable source talking a little about it.  is a questionably reliable source on the park that talks about it. Based on the number of weak sources, and the long-running nature of the subject, I'm weakly supporting keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  —Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've changed my recommendation to keep (from weak keep) per the book sources Whitehorse has found. Coverage in published book sources changes things a lot.


 * Comment I'm very confident that this article will be kept as I don't see any good enough reason to get rid of it, but just in case it does get deleted, could somebody please give me a coffee copy of the article. Thanks. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And per above comment. Can the above user please add those references to the article. It would be appreciated. Thanks. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the article survives AfD, I'll do a careful review of those sources to determine which should actually be in the article, and add them then. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The ride is covered in printed book sources—previewable on Google Books: e.g. Rhodes, Jason (2005). Maryland's Amusement Parks. Arcadia Publishing. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-7385-1795-7. The designer, is mentioned in further titles such as Butko, Brian (2007). Roadside Attractions: Cool Cafés, Souvenir Stands, Route 66 Relics, & Other Road Trip Fun. Stackpole Books. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-8117-0229-4, and Hahner, Carl, O; Hughes (2007). Kennywood. Arcadia Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-7385-3563-0 , which can provide information to give context to the reader and build a more complete article. I have expanded the article using the sources I found. As the ride is explicitly covered in at least one printed book (meeting WP:V), which is not self-published, and we can reasonably believe additional reliable-sources exist to further establish its notability, the standards for inclusion are met. –Whitehorse1 04:46, 11 May 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.