321:: The plan "cleared its first hurdle when Orange County's Development Review Committee gave preliminary approval with conditions to plans for ....'probably in the neighborhood of a $ 100 million project'....The next stop for the development will be the Orange County Commission." Lots of maybes, no certainties, not even about the proposed budget. The other "new" piece actually clearly cannibalizes the Fox report, repeating most of its points but without any of the attribution nor any of the ifs and caveats, just recasting all the possibilities as if they were certainties; tt is not actually a reliable source at all. The other source is a single paragraph that tells the same story, but is dated March of this year, indicating that the facts (and the lack of any of them firming up) have apparently not changed in five months, with the exception of a single favorable "preliminary review", a "first hurdle". I have nothing against the project, it's simply isn't encyclopedic until it is at least certainly happening and being worked on, not just being talked about as a "maybe". —
200:, though of course an amusement park won't build itself. Another issue is that the article is really about a proposed amusement park with other features, not just about the proposed giant ferris wheel. PS: Interestingly, the creator's talk page consists of almost nothing but CSD/AFD deletion notices, but almost half of the articles in question were actually kept. Kind of an editorial tightrope walker. :-) —
288:, regardless how much buzz there may be about the possibility of it happening, because it's not encyclopedic until a) it happens, or b) some controversy about, or other event surrounding, it becomes notable in and of itself (and then the article should focus on the controversy or whatever, not the allegedly forthcoming widget). —
192:. Normally I wouldn't AfD an article this new, but the facts seems to speak for themselves, and addition of further sources reporting that the proposal "might" lead to something "if" approved aren't going to help anything. After construction has begun, maybe this article could be encyclopedic. I thought about
316:
Here's a quote from one of the additional local/regional sources added (from the local Fox TV affiliate): "Circle
Entertainment , in filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, indicated closing on the deal will take place by January 1, 2012." This actually supports my nomination for deletion
317:
as blatant prediction, since it indicates that there isn't even a stable financial, zoning or other fact to rely on, only involved parties' expectations about a proposed deal and the milestones it has to cross to become a reality. Here's more, from an article
254:
I was able to find several non-trivial, independent sources that cover this Ferris wheel even over and above what the original editor has included in the article. It seems that its notability has be sufficiently established in my opinion.
410:, but the attraction is merely in the planning stages and could fall through. Once construction begins, it might be fair to add it to such a list, but having its own article right now, predicting its details and expected visitors is
187:
Article on a proposed structure/business. Even the one source cited uses "iffy" wording like "may", "could", etc. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anything stable is underway, it's simply an idea floating around in a
156:
284:. Regardless of some local media coverage, it's still the amusement-parkish equivalent of "So-and-so's forthcoming third album" or "Next constitution of Elbonia"; we routinely delete this stuff per
117:
228:
150:
407:
17:
335:
302:
214:
90:
85:
94:
171:
138:
77:
444:
36:
443:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
132:
420:
390:
329:
296:
208:
128:
429:
394:
365:
341:
308:
264:
243:
220:
59:
411:
406:
with no prejudice to recreation when it is actually constructed. I would have suggested a merge to
354:
189:
361:
260:
178:
164:
375:
239:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
415:
386:
324:
291:
203:
81:
424:
285:
281:
193:
144:
357:
256:
55:
277:
280:
isn't the only active guideline here, and there's a policy matter that outranks it:
235:
196:
this, but it's not entirely clear that this counts as a non-notable "organization"
111:
73:
65:
378:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
50:
437:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
107:
103:
99:
163:
385:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
447:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
229:list of Florida-related deletion discussions
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
226:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
408:List of Orlando, Florida attractions
24:
1:
430:04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
395:00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
366:18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
342:03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
309:03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
265:18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
244:01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
221:23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
60:17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
464:
440:Please do not modify it.
319:published only yesterday
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
428:
397:
339:
306:
246:
232:
218:
194:speedily deleting
455:
442:
422:
384:
380:
340:
334:
333:
314:Source rebuttal:
307:
301:
300:
233:
219:
213:
212:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
463:
462:
458:
457:
456:
454:
453:
452:
451:
445:deletion review
438:
373:
353:Per point 5 of
328:
322:
295:
289:
207:
201:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
461:
459:
450:
449:
433:
432:
400:
399:
398:
382:
381:
370:
369:
368:
347:
346:
345:
344:
320:
311:
286:WP:NOT#CRYSTAL
268:
267:
248:
247:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
460:
448:
446:
441:
435:
434:
431:
426:
423:(note: not a
421:
419:
418:
413:
409:
405:
402:
401:
396:
392:
388:
383:
379:
377:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
352:
349:
348:
343:
337:
331:
327:
326:
318:
315:
312:
310:
304:
298:
294:
293:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
262:
258:
253:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
216:
210:
206:
205:
199:
195:
191:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
439:
436:
417:I, Jethrobot
416:
403:
374:
350:
323:
313:
290:
273:
251:
202:
197:
190:crystal ball
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
387:Ron Ritzman
325:SMcCandlish
292:SMcCandlish
204:SMcCandlish
151:free images
74:Orlando Eye
66:Orlando Eye
412:WP:CRYSTAL
355:WP:CRYSTAL
358:MadCow257
257:Topher385
236:• Gene93k
376:Relisted
336:Contribs
303:Contribs
215:Contribs
118:View log
274:Comment
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
404:Delete
351:Delete
282:WP:NOT
198:per se
129:Google
95:delete
46:delete
332:ʕ(ل)ˀ
330:Talk⇒
299:ʕ(ل)ˀ
297:Talk⇒
252:Keep:
211:ʕ(ل)ˀ
209:Talk⇒
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
391:talk
362:talk
278:WP:N
261:talk
240:talk
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
48:. —
425:bot
179:TWL
116:– (
427:!)
414:.
393:)
364:)
276::
263:)
242:)
234:—
231:.
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
389:(
360:(
338:.
305:.
259:(
238:(
217:.
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.