Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween Horror Nights (Hollywood)

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. As a copyright violation of www.thestudiotour.com -- no earlier version is copyvio-free. Shimeru 06:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Horror Nights (Hollywood)

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

None of the current sources appear to meet WP:RS, and all the sources I could find at reliable sources were minor mentions - usually in lists of happenings -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because there is the same lack of reliable sources of information:

~~Delete~~ - There are some haunted attraction articles which have reliable sources, but these are not among them. I've tried to find sources for most of these Halloween franchise articles without success, and when I tried to remove primary sources (under my previous username) I was told by an editor that there are not any secondary sources. --~T P W 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If these really are "unquestionably [the] largest Halloween event in the United States" as stated by Kiwisoup, then I will be happy to reverse my position. Deletion debates should consider the potential for reliable sources, and I don't think the fact that the attractions are large is sufficient argument for there being such potential. I'm hoping a contributor to this debate can convince me otherwise.--~T P W 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing this to weak keep per Krispy101's sourcing attempt below. The CNN article is only a trivial mention so it doesn't do anything to establish notability, but the local coverage seems to be extensive enough that it probably barely passes. Being a successful business venture does not, in and of itself, confer any notability, and I continue to be surprised that an operation this large hasn't received any significant coverage in major media outlets. Having worked at a notable haunted attraction which has been featured by the Travel Channel I know that their coverage, although well-produced, is essentially a promotional piece that doesn't add any encyclopedic value.--~T P W 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is my first attempt at a reply to a discussion here, so I apologize if I do it incorrectly. PhantomSteve, exactly what type of reliable sources are you looking for? Have you looked at the official Halloween Horror Nights Website, run by Universal Studios Orlando: http://www.halloweenhorrornights.com/orlando and here's a link to a TV commercial for last year's event which I'm sure is seen by a wide array of people worldwide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIfCjWK60A0 and here is a link to an interview with one of the main producers of the event from last year's event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubTcYghliY Hope this helps! HHN4Life81 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) — HHN4Life81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your reply is just fine, HHN4Life81. What Phantomsteve (and Wikipedia policy) is looking for is third party sources. The examples you give are created by HHN to promote it. reliable sources have no interest in the subject, aren't paid by the subject, and may say good or bad things about it. They have no vested interest in promoting the place. These sources are very difficult to find for this venue, and even though I have changed my position to "weak keep" I expect that this article will probably deleted at some point because I don't expect the sources are ever going to get any better.--~T P W 12:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The articles have potential as they discuss two major Halloween events. I feel that the issue of primary sources can easily be resolved with work from editors. Deleting an article will not help Wikipedia; Improving it will.--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did look for reliable, independent sources - and couldn't find any. If you could find some, Snowman Guy, I'd be quite happy to change my mind on these two articles, and keep them. I prefer to keep articles if sources can be found, but if not then I think that they should be deleted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articles in question are about the unquestionably largest Halloween event in the United States, and many would even sayn the world. I came to you, Pahantomsteve, asking you for help because an ip user was vandalising the less popular Hollywood page, and you seemed to side with the vandal and now you're solution is to just delete both pages? I really have a problem with admins like you who just want to stifle everyone else and delete things and point out what's wrong with something instead of trying to fix it. I'm very sorry that I ever asked for help, I'll be sure to never do it again. Kiwisoup (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did say last week that I had looked for reliable sources for these articles - your response was basically that it was my responsibility to try harder to find sources! Last Friday, I said I did spend some time looking for sources - please don't "encourage [me] to try to do better and see if you can find any supporting information"! I looked, and didn't find anything reliable - if you think it is notable, I would encourage you to find something! I am considering putting this up for deletion, but will think on it some more and decide next week - see (diff) - and in that time, no reliable sources were added to either article. I didn't side with the vandal, I mentioned that there were no reliable sources to show which information (yours or the vandal) was correct - and there still are not.

I am sorry that you seem to think that if you ask an admin to look harder for sources, that they are duty-bound to do so. I did look, and didn't find them. I gave you a few days notice of my intention to put it up for deletion - it wasn't as if I did it without giving any warning. If you look at my contributions, you will see many times where I looked for sources (from articles which had been unsourced for perhaps 3 years) and found some - look at these diffs: Manual Carvalho da Silva, Desi Slava, Vasil Slavov, André Sonko, Richard Vickers, David Allan Walker - to name just 6 articles. Look at this article which I brought to GA status from a 1-line stub which was inaccurate even in that sentence - following lots of research, finding reliable sources; look at William Stanley (inventor), which I created from scratch, with plenty of reliable sources - which currently has Good Article status, and is working on having Featured Article status. What is the difference between all of those articles and the 2 which I have nominated at this AfD? They had reliable independent sources which allowed the information to be verified.

I truly am sorry that you feel that I have, I don't know, betrayed you - but I feel that I have been perfectly fair, I have tried my best to find some sources which could be used - and gave you a few days notice of my intention to bring the articles here. I am not siding with the vandal, or turning against you. The only side I am on is that of Wikipedia, with it's verifiability and notability criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-If Wikipedia wants to delete this article, then I want to delete Wikipedia. I don't think the moderators over here really understand anything about how substantial of an event Halloween Horror Nights- Orlando is. If you delete the page, I just won't use Wikipedia anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohaaron (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC) — Ohaaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way, but if the event is such a substantial event, I would expect to have been able to find significant coverage at reliable independent sources, and as I said, I was unable to find that. If you can, please feel free to add them to the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find absolutely no reason to delete this page. Halloween Horror Nights is a multi-million dollar event that has been running for 20 years. It attracts very large numbers of tourists to one of the largest theme parks in the United States and has been successful year after year. Honestly, if you can't find any sources, you must have never used an Internet search engine in your life. Or do you just sit there and expect other people to do the work for you rather than trying to find sources yourself? It has been covered by the Orlando Sentinel, Screamscape, Attractions Magazine, and other publications. That's from one page of Google. What's your excuse?Chitoryu12 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No reputable, independent sources? (I've only looked for NEWS CHANNELS and WEBSITES here, so apologies if there is lack of concentration on the event, but I'm sure you see my point.)

CNN Small article on Halloween events featuring HHN 19 (2009) WESH 9 News in Florida having a search for Halloween Horror Nights, plenty of results there. About.com article on HHN. Orlando Sentinel Photo Gallery of HHN.

And finally, a travel channel documentary on the event in 2002 (I think) called The art of the scare which you can watch here [part 1] I hope this helps with the deletion and makes you seriously reconsider.

KrisKrispy101 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can see the point about the lack of sources for a lot of the info on these two pages (Hollywood and Orlando versions), and how that makes "vandalism" hard to "prove". But deleting the page doesn't solve the problem, since this interesting info would then be gone. I am sure there there are sources out there, and I will seek to help find those. This deletion nomination alerted to me the situation these articles are in, and I hope we have the chance to help improve these articles together. Keep it! --Mtjaws (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to question the veracity of any deletion request is the Howl-O-Scream articles. They have far fewer independent, reliable sources than the HHN articles, and yet THEY aren't at risk of deletion. Since when did two articles about similar events get treated differently? Chitoryu12 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chitoryu12, we try to focus a deletion debate on the article(s) being discussed instead of other stuff. I've known about the Howl-O-Scream articles for a long time, and I agree that they're in horrible condition. By all means, feel free to nominate those for deletion, but please try to keep this discussion about the merits of these articles.--~T P W 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My suggestion would be to combine Hallowe'en Horror Nights (Orlando) and Hallowe'en Horror Nights (Hollywood) into Hallowe'en Horror Nights, which is currently just a disambiguation page leading onlyu to the Hollywood/Orlando pages. I think the resulting page may need to be cut down a tad, but the events are noteworthy (and well attended enough) to keep--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructible Keep: This is definitely the wrong time to consider the HHN article page for deletion considering fans are expecting the press release to be released this week. This information has been verified by the official HHN Twitter account (@HorrorNights) ran by the creative director, Mr. John Murdy. He is also the source of information fans receive, excluding rumors. I see no reason to consider this page for deletion, especially with this timing. I vote to keep the page and to keep it as an individual article. Though similar, HHN Orlando and Hollywood are not fully identical. Especially with the news fans have received this year.

Anukii (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Anukii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - keep in mind that press releases are not, in any sense, reliable sources. They are self-published promotional pieces and should not be considered. The problem with HHN is that no third-party sources are taking their press releases and rewriting them into articles; this is why it's only a barely notable subject, at best.--~T P W 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Strong Keep'": Never done this before, but seeing that this page might be deleted forced me into action. This is, without a doubt, the largest Halloween Event in the country. Specifically the Orlando event - it's celebrating its 20th year, and this page needs to exist. One of the chief historic accounts of the event, the HHN Vault, closed down a couple months ago. Currently, this wikipedia page seems to house the only historical information on the first 16 years of the event. The Web site http://www.horrornightnightmares.com is devoted to the events, but does not feature a history page. This is what fans of the site are currently relying on, after the closing of the previously widely popular HHN Vault. There's also http://www.hhnrumors.com for news on the event. This event is a huge deal in Florida theme parks and deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discoliz (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Discoliz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, none of those sources would come under Wikipedia's criteria for reliable independent sources. I'll also comment on the sources referred to above while I'm here: the CNN coverage is a very minor mention of HHN (in one sentence, listed with other similar events); the other sources (WESH, etc) are more impressive - but I get ~~two~~the impression~~s: firstly,~~ that ~~they are based on press releases (and so not truly independent); secondly,~~ they are local coverage. I will gladly concede that HHN has great local significance - but this is not the Florida Wikipedia (or even the United States Wikipedia) but the English Language Wikipedia - if there is not even significant coverage of the events nationally (let alone internationally), how can it be counted as meeting the notability criteria for inclusion? Although I appreciate the work done by Krispy101 to find sources, I am still not convinced that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but getting the "impression" that something is based on a press release doesn't invalidate a source just because you THINK something. I think you need substantial proof if is the reason you say a source that otherwise meets the criteria is good enough. You are being so ridiculous and stubborn; there are countless articles of much less notability that have no sources at all and you are on this crusade to have this important article deleted. So any news coverage that lists the specific names of haunted houses and scarezones is someone just reiterating what a press release says? I'm sorry but the names are the names, what else do you expect people to refer to them as? Kiwisoup (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the "press release" bit of my comment above, as you have a fair point. However, all the coverage seems to be local. As to your point about an article which just "lists the specific names...": if the coverage is just that (one in a list of names), then that is not significant coverage.

The whole purpose of the Articles for deletion process is to allow there to be a discussion. Not everyone will agree - but if you took the time to look at my history of contributions to AfDs (including the ones which I have nominated), you will see that I have changed my !vote on occasions - when I feel that the point has been made to my satisfaction. In this case, that has not happened yet - this appears to be a subject of importance locally, but not nationally or internationally (as far as press coverage goes). This isn't a vendetta for me - as I said, if the arguments are convincing to me, then I'd withdraw my nomination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator, please visit this link. http://www.google.com/search?q=halloween+horror+nights&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IdcgTKLyN4PGlQfbnoSrAQ&ved=0CJoDEKUC&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:100,tlul:1991,tluh:2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.207.107 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (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.