Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keylime cove

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 delete. —Kurykh 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keylime cove

Keylime cove (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

About a NN, not yet opened water park. Written in a tone that is commercial in nature. Conflict of interest is present (see talk page, apprently the article is written by someone representing the company.) Originally I listed this as a G11 speedy candidate, but the article's creator argued otherwise, changed this to an AfD as a courtesy and to get some consensus from the community. Rackabello 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't so much a promotion of the park as it is something of a synopsis of who is building the park - in short, one of those signs on a construction site. The park is not yet even built, and beyond that, it is not notable yet. If the park becomes notable after it is built, I have no prejudice to recreation at that time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clear COI, tone isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia, and isn't notable yet. I've yet to see reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources documenting this theme park that isn't open yet. (→O - RLY?) 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but watch for COI. Sources aplenty, and certainly notable enough. The only major issue is the COI, and that can be remedied by keeping a close watch on the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COI. At best, this article needs to be scrapped and entirely rewritten. But simple cleanup/rewrite is not the only issue here, as the sources Starblind points to have not been vetted. The Chicago SunTimes source does not in any way qualify as "significant coverage". The Star Tribune article talks about the park only because the developer is notable, and mentions him and his history just as much, if not more, than the park. Without those, I would say this article also fails WP:N, as most of the other sources are either not reliable and independent or are borderline trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's a bit of coverage, and this is definitely locally notable (i.e. in Gurnee), but almost all of the sources describe it as one of "several" waterpark developments in Chicagoland and beyond, and part of a "waterpark craze" (I can speak to that here in Wisconsin, where my city is hoping to build one so as not to be the only city in the area without). About the only thing that makes this special is that it's being codeveloped with a hotel/conference center, but even that isn't unique, as numerous hotels and convention centers that already exist have been adding waterparks as an amenity. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Rambutan (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2007 (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.