Deletion of Dynamite (roller coaster)

Comment: Although I voted "keep" at rticles for deletion/Copperhead Strike|AfD/Copperhead Strike, this topic falls into a different category for me. Roller coasters are a dime a dozen anymore, and the mere existence of one does not justify a standalone article. There are thousands of non-notable roller coasters that can exist perfectly fine in their respective amusement park articles, especially when there are no defining characteristics of the ride that distinguishes it from its peers. Even more concerning in this case is that the main amusement park housing the new coaster, Freizeitpark Plohn, doesn't even have its own article. Personally, I would think that should come first. There needs to be some justification as to why this ride can't exist as a 2-3 sentence entry within that article. Realize that in the modern age, just about every new attraction comes in with a big marketing bang in the press and social media, but that type of significant coverage does not mean it merits having a standalone article.{{parabr}}Rides that fail to impact their industry in a significant way (setting records, milestones, etc.) should at best be a discussed as a minor detail in a broader topic, such as the ride manufacturer's article or the amusement park article. Fails  on the "Presumed" aspect; Wikipedia is |not a travel or amusement park guide or a |means of promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:GNG||WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:NOTPROMO)

Comment: per . However, when this coaster opens it may become a candidate for an article but for now its too soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)