Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LC12

LC12

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

This article (about a roller coaster to open next year) seems massively premature to me, and against WP:CBALL. Although it's not badly written, it's mainly unsourced - verifiable facts come from one (primary) source (the planning application), and the rest is speculation. The term 'LC12' itself is only the project tag for the coaster. Once the coaster opens next year, I can see it being possible to write a decent article, but right now it is and can only be a mixture of facts directly from the primary-source planning application, speculation, and links to fan sites. _Talk Islander 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Once the article is deleted, however, LC12 should be redirected back to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 12, which is the original target of this title. Neelix (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went to the article today and thought "WTF WHY IS THIS ARTICLE UP FOR DELETION!?!!?!?!", clicked on this and thought "Oh, Islander! That explains it all." --94.168.95.164 (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In light of the official announcement of the ride, I have moved the article LC12 to The Swarm (roller coaster). I thought I would mention that here to clear any confusion. Themeparkgc Talk 08:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the article was nominated for deletion I have made several contributions to the article to verify all of its claims. At the time the article was nominated for deletion (old rev.), it featured only one source. Throughout my contributions today (diff), I have gone through the whole article to ensure all of the information in it is verified by some source (adding an additional 24 sources to the article in the process). WP:CBALL states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" - in light of my recent changes, there is no unverifiable speculation in the article. Also the external links to fan sites have been removed per WP:ELNO. Hopefully these changes address the orginal concerns with the article. Themeparkgc Talk 08:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Themeparkgc has provided sources that demonstrate a sufficiently significant amount of reliable, secondary coverage of the topic. Neelix (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well-sourced and now updated with its official name. --McDoob AU 93 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think there's any question whether it should be kept anymore, as the main title has been updated from LC12 to The Swarm. Sporlo (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - a comment to keep the article has been placed on the talk page by ThorpeParkGuru (talk · contribs). Themeparkgc Talk 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - in light of the great job done by Themeparkgc, this article no longer fails in the ways for which I nominated it for deletion. _Talk Islander 21:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]