Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus (roller coaster)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pegasus (roller coaster)

Pegasus (roller coaster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable roller coaster. Article fails to mention its notability. Article appears identical to other articles about roller coasters at Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are from the same theme park, also fail to assert notability, and are written in the same form as Pegasus:

Cyclops (roller coaster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Zeus (roller coaster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep this, Cyclops, and Zeus (if they are listed for deletion too). There are no guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability for roller coasters, but it is common practice for us to keep articles for all roller coasters at most amusement parks. For our coverage of Six Flags and Cedar Fair parks, we have articles on even most of the kiddie coasters. Mt. Olympus's wooden coasters are known mainly for the airtime they produce and are renowned by coaster enthusiasts for this (particularly Cyclops (roller coaster)); the park has also received more attention recently for its partially underground coaster, Hades, and its wave pool with 9-foot waves, Poseidon's Rage. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sounds like you are getting into the invalid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument when you note that there are articles for "kiddie" rides. Please show that this ride has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:N or that it satisfies WP:ORG or other guidelines. I question "common practice" being to keep such articles in previous AFDs, but maybe I just missed them. Edison 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an overused essay and your use of it in this argument is dubious at best. WP:BASH is just as applicable for your own arguments. Here and here are two previous keep AfDs on roller coaster articles that were in worse shape at the time. IronGargoyle 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Idont Havaname. There is no notability guideline for roller coasters and for very good reason. Nearly any roller coaster is notable, being a multi-million dollar piece of engineering and artwork that becomes a permanent part of the surrounding landscape. Yes, there are a lot of stub-length roller coaster articles, but nearly all rely on reliable sources (www.rcdb.com, at the very least). These can be expanded. IronGargoyle 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per above. No notability guidelines for roller coasters, possible creation for theme park rides maybe? T Rex | talk 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, IronGargoyle said exactly what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per above -- there's no notability guideline for roller coasters, but IronGargoyle's rationale for keeping all roller coaster articles is good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into the article for the park. The unsubstantiated claim that it costs millions is great, but sources would be better. Many things that cost millions of dollars get their articles routinely deleted, such as minor shopping malls, libraries, or college dorms. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes I can't find any note that all amusement park rides have been found to ne notable enough for articles in previous AFDs. In the meantime, merge all such stub articles into the article for the amusement park which contains them. If the section on the ride becomes too large (with refs satisfying WP:A) for the article on the park, then and only then split it off. As for it being "permanent" tell that to the rides at Opryland USA or Riverview Park. Even at parks which are still in operation, rides are regularly replaced. There is no guideline I can find which says all amusement park rides are inherently notable. To have an article, it should meet WP:N or perhaps WP:ORG. The sole source for these rides so far is www.rcdb.com, which appears to be a fan site, and one might question whether it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. It has undated, unsigned notes about the ride, although it does list names of the site creator and editors. It is still not "multiple." Edison 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • RCDB is not a "fan site". There is consensus at the Roller Coaster wikiproject that it is a reliable source. WP:N advises multiple reliable sources, but does not demand them. WP:N is also a guideline and not policy. Using WP:ORG for roller coaster articles makes very little sense. IronGargoyle 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The roller coaster project's judgment is not a guideline for inclusion that mandates inherent notability for every roller coaster in eveery park. Their judgment about the reliability of an apparently fan-created database of roller coasters is informative and helpful but by no means binding. If WP:ORG is inappropriate, then judge it by WP:N, and it fails. Merging the stubs into an article about a given park makes lots of sense. Having a spew of nearly unsourced one or two sentence stubs makes no sense. Edison 00:16, 3 August 2007 (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.