Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copperhead Strike

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. The only argument for deletion here is that WP:CRYSTAL is violated, but there is clear consensus that it is not. Michig (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copperhead Strike

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:CRYSTALBALL coaster article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD of WP:CRYSTALBALL roller coasters:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning, Computer40, Adog104, Bakazaka, JC7V7DC5768, Chrissymad, Power~enwiki, and Wolfson5: Courtesy ping because you had voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Racers and this article is about a rollercoaster under construction and is created by the same editor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Shadowowl because they voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamite (roller coaster), which is also created by the same editor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. » Shadowowl | talk 14:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MBlaze Lightning 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)switching to weak keep[reply]

Weak keep: per the sources below, which essentially invalidates the crystal ball argument. MBlaze Lightning 10:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination, obvious WP:CRYSTALBALL.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per others - seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply anymore since it's under active construction with plenty of references.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Too soon as this article is a WP:CRYSTALBALL. JC7V-constructive zone 07:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Weak Keep I'm changing my vote to Weak keep in light of the sources below which shows that WP:Crystal Ball no longer applies and a deletion or even a redirect are not needed. JC7V-constructive zone 01:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:CRYSTALBALL no longer applies once a new product moves beyond a simple announcement. Construction and marketing began earlier this year, and recent media coverage has revealed exact details/specifications surrounding the new coaster. Typically, we prefer to wait for the official press conference where the ride is revealed before creating the article, and that time has arrived. All of this is well documented in the following sources:

Carowinds (marketing, specifications, and construction)

Coaster101 (marketing and specifications)

Charlotte Business Journal (marketing and specifications)

ColaDaily.com (marketing, specifications, and construction)

NewsPlusNotes (construction before reveal)

WP:FILM is a good comparison to take into consideration here. That WikiProject waits until a film has entered production before creating the article. For roller coasters, it's reasonable to take the same approach by waiting for the official announcement on press day and for construction to begin. Both have occurred here, and there has been a considerable marketing effort on behalf of the park. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment – Another comparison in favor of "Keep": The iPhone X article was created at the time of the official reveal on September 12, 2017, despite its release to the public being more than two months away. Official specs and features were given, moving the topic beyond a simple product announcement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks of this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with Keep, as with what I had concerned over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Racers addressing this article, albeit unsure at first. Following up, I would say the WP:CRYSTALBALL wouldn't apply, as the product is no longer speculative or a future presumption because its construction is verified by its recent announcement, and sources provide its verifiability. Although if the article was created well before such an announcement, it would be a speculative article about an unverifiable product. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply because there is an announcement is your non-argument? Things can still fail after an announcement. » Shadowowl | talk 09:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I argued: "the product is no longer speculative or a future presumption because its construction is verified by its recent announcement, and sources provide its verifiability". The prospect of the product will be constructed is likely to occur given that some development has been observed, and it has been recorded and covered through reliable means. Therefore, regardless of its future predictability (or outcome), it is an appropriate topic at this time given that there is sufficient information to verify that it is happening (we could also look at any of the sports stadiums being built or drafted in the United States for instance). WP:NOTBUILT rings a bell.
On another note: it would help in the future to point out what part of CRYSTAL any of this applies to since that's such a broad argument. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there has ever been a roller coaster in the United States that has ever "failed" or been cancelled after entering the construction phase, and certainly it has not happened within the last 40 years. Where you see these mammoth investments typically get stalled or cancelled is during the development phase, and even that is a pretty rare occurrence (I can only think of two in the last 20 years). We are well past the development phase, and there are multiple WikiProjects with examples like I listed above that have been taking the same approach as what has been taken with this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the roller-coaster does at least partly exist and has been reported on, thus meets the basic notability guideline. If for some reason it was cancelled now, that would be reported on too. The subject of the cancelled roller-coaster project would still be notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.