Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motiongate Dubai

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. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motiongate Dubai

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

I see this as WP:EXISTS and/or WP:TOOSOON. Googling Motiongate Dubai, I find several websites saying the theme park is open since December 2016, but besides a news article, there are no in-depth reviews I can find. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much like Walt Disney Studios Park within Disneyland Paris, it is quite major and there has been extensive in-depth coverage and reviews, like from Arab News, The Daily Telegraph, Theme Park Insider and Saudi Gazette. [1][2][3][4] And these are just English language sources found in a few seconds of a topic in an Arabic-speaking nation. most certainly more native language sources exist and probably more in-depth. --Oakshade (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I too found there was enough coverage per GNG. Maybe the confusion is about the nomination statement's "in-depth reviews" We don't need "reviews" necessarily. And the fact that we've one by the Independent in the UK, beyond Dubai, helps, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a tourist attraction, which pretty much makes it notable (there has to exist coverage about it, and readers want to find out about it). (We need a wp:TOURISTATTRACTION, currently a redlink).--do ncr am 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tourist attractions are not inherently notable. Stop inventing non existent notability criterion. If there is coverage you should show it WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 28 February 2017 (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.