- 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 --JForget 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Phantom Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unreferenced article about a single, seemingly unnotable ride at a theme park. Mostly just a detailed description of the ride with quite a bit of stuff that reads like original research. Tagged as unreferenced since March and still unaddressed, seeming to indicate there are none available. Collectonian (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a precedent to have individual articles about individual Disney park rides. See Haunted Mansion for an example. Corvus cornixtalk 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so because others have articles they all should? Also, note the difference between the two articles. also, from the references, Haunted Mansion is a notable ride with an actual book written about it. This ride has no such claim of notability. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Corvus. ShivaeVolved 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:WikiProject Disney has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but eviscerate. Nine months without any references is WAY too long, and most of the details are, well, too detailed for Wiki anyways - Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article reminds me of the 50K plot outlines of little-known fiction books. However, I think that there is precedence for this article (and, frankly, I think it meets notability guidelines). I anticipate WikiProject:Disney will want to keep this article, too. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:WAX. Thinboy00 @786, i.e. 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If this article is deleted, the same fate should be upon almost every single Disney theme park ride article, and there are lots of them. That said, a thorough rewrite is in order. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is more than reasonable to assume each and every Disney theme park ride should warrant an article on Wikipedia. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it needs a clean up, but just because some people think it is not notable, doesn't make it not notable. Maybe it doesn't get the same attention as The Haunted Mansion or The Pirates of the Caribbean, but it looks to be one of the most amazing rides at the park, with vast differences from Haunted Mansion. --blm07 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well after reading most of the texts and headlines. Some of them are fan-created not from any source. Like almost everyone here says, it needs clean up and also to expand. But using their own knowledge, which it is good. The article is great, but it needs to be longer, the history of the attraction, and a story of Phantom Manor. I recommend taking some outside photographs from http://happy-haunts.com and putting it into the article to improve. It does not need to be deleted for obvious reasons, because of it's flowery sentences. It really needs to be retyped with true facts of the attraction. So, KEEP this article. It does not violate Disney's copyrights at all. Please don't delete. SilverWerewolf 1:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this is just another disney attraction. I say that it deserves it's own page.--Baitt (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]