Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyhawk(2006)

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 of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skyhawk(2006)

Not encyclopedic roller coaster that hasn't been built yet. Delete —Brim

• Despite POV problems (almost promotional in nature), better to Rewrite and Merge with Cedar Point. The construction is going on; this could go into a "Planned for 2006" section. B.Wind 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely clean up. The swing is noteable as the worlds (soon to be tallest), and May 2006 is pretty close. However, the entry reads like a bad TV commercial. If it doesn't get cleaned up I move to delete based on vanity. HackJandy 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I fixed this article so it doesn't sound like a nine year old wrote it.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Cedar Point. Verifiable since it's under construction. I'm a bit unsure of whether roller coasters deserve their own article, but I don't think a deletion is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roller coasters aren't inherently notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia and this one isn't much more notable than any other coaster. New rides are frequently the fastest, or the highest, or have the most loops when they first open, but they are usually surpassed in a few months or years because the industry is extremely competitive. I have a hard time thinking of anything that could make a roller coaster notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. For me, it would have to be the first of a type of coaster, the most visited ride in the nation, the oldest coaster in operation or cause a large number of deaths. -- Kjkolb 11:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Cedar Point. Individual roller coasters are not significant enough to warrant individual articles. If kept, the title should be changed to Skyhawk (Cedar Point) (or something similar) as the (2006) should go. -- JLaTondre 12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - tallest, first, best, etc, are automatically notable. Even if it hasn't been finished yet, it is still of historical importance. Zordrac 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Cedar Point: When it becomes known outside of its park (when it is complete and becomes the biggest, baddest, scariest, hairiest, etc.), then it should be discussed outside of its park. At this point, it is under construction, and there is many a slip betwixt cup and lip. We'll wait for it to achieve its records. (And will we automatically search and AfD any coaster that got an article previously for being biggest/tallest/fastest/etc.?) Geogre 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Cedar Point per Geogre. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Apology- I'm sorry as the author that this page had so many faults. Please delete if needed. 5:55 PM 29 November 2005
  • Comment. It's nothing to worry about. It seems you are new to editing in Wikipedia. Take a little time to read some of the articles in Help:Contents and you'll quickly get the hang of how things work here. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, as above, but definitely not delete. Roller coaster records don't change *that* often. Turnstep 01:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Cedar Point. Preaky 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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.