Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain Teaser

Add links
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Teaser[edit]

This article does not meet wikipedia's notablity requirements. If this were a full size roller coaster than sure, but it is just your run of the mill little kiddie coaster. see a picture here[1] Although I understand the need for articles on the big rides at parks like this, small generic rides should not be granted their own articles... thanks for reading T-rex 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant info to Six Flags Darien Lake to expand the short blurb that already exists on that page. At least the other rollercoasters listed there (except for the The Viper) are located in several parks and are not kiddie rides. Fabricationary 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, whose goal is "to make Wikipedia into a BETTER roller coaster reference than the Roller Coaster Database". To do that, we need articles on all coasters, big and small. This one just needs some time and expansion. Note that it's also linked from the SFDL template -- also part of Project roller coasters -- if the article is deleted, it will leave a hole in this template. --Rehcsif 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if this is deleted it will be removed from the template... the biggest drop on this thing is only like 2 feet... --T-rex 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RCDB thinks it's worthwhile: [2]. --Rehcsif 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not RCDB. Our standards are different. Not higher, not lower, just different. And less directly oriented towards the inclusion of rollercoasters. — Haeleth Talk 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If the intent of Wikipedia is to be better than RCDB, then this coaster should have its own page. That is the goal of the Roller coaster WikiProject--to make Wikipedia better than RCDB. --myselfalso 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, not a directory --T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Fabricationary. Too minor/generic for its own article. -- GWO
  • Merge. Sorry to the rollercoaster project, but I'm afraid your goals are secondary to the goals of the Wikipedia project as a whole -- that is, you can only create a better rollercoaster reference to the extent that that is compatible with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. I don't think that this particular ride really merits its own article in the context of an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article isn't much as it is, but all it needs is for a Wikipedian who lives near the park to go there and do a little first-hand research and maybe take a picture or two. Also, if this article is deleted and its entry is removed from the park's template, the template will be rendered meaningless as it wouldn't list ALL the coasters at the park. We'd have to call it "Selected roller coasters at Six Flags Darien Lake" or something to that extent. If this is deleted or merged, it will set a bad precedent for other similar coaster articles. Also, as much as I hate to refer to WP:PTEST, it pretty much applies here. Dusso Janladde 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at this page (sixflags.com), the park itself doesn't even think this ride is important enough to put on their ride list. The first two are their big new rides, followed by the 5 (yes only five) real rollercoasters and then selected other rides, no mention of this non-notable want-to-be coaster --T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I am also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, and I agree with Rehcsif -FTIII 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Basically all of Dusso Janladde's reasons --Phantom784 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & expand For the reasons stated above. RCDB simply lists statistics whereas Wikipedia has the potential to include a detailed history for all roller coasters. However, articles like this need expanding by someone with knowledge of the ride in question for the Roller Coaster Project to be taken seriously. --Fozi999 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even with no previous knowledge of this coaster I've done some research and added a little more to the article. However, it still needs attention from someone who has more knowledge of the ride. For example, there's no information on where the coaster is actually situated within the park. --Fozi999 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The creation of Wikiprojects attest to the overall notability of the subject matter and deserves the Wikipedia's community's support. The size of the size of the drop is irrelevant. Each coaster (big or small) is an architectural structure that incoporates the applicable laws of physics. If we are compiling a worthwhile and informative data base on coasters then there is need and notability in the inclusion of all types of coasters--even teh small ones. 205.157.110.11 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Fabricationary and Haeleth. This is an Encyclopedia, not a database. T. Moitie 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can keep it as comprehensive as you already have it when it is in the main article. There is no warrent for an article for every single rollercoaster big or small. And there is no reason why having the article inside a larger article would ruin the project. - T. Moitie 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect, there's no reason that there cannot be a half-dozen paragraphs in one article about the coasters at that park, rather than six separate articles that are only a few lines each. Merging would actually make it more useful. --JD79 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But this is not a finished article, so saying "a few lines" is not a fair statement. Please check out Kingda Ka, The Demon, or El Toro for an example of a coaster article with some maturity. --Rehcsif 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has been nomiated for deletion, and I oppose that idea. Certainly it is not a major article, and certainly will never rise above stub level, but there is little reason to delete it based upon how much work has been done by members of the Roller Coaster Project on tracking every roller coaster possible. (Note: The preceeding comment was placed on Talk:Brain Teaser by User:Zotdragon)
  • Keep: This article may not be the most important ever, but I think its vital to Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters. - Bagel7 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Six Flags Darien Lake. Kiddie roller coasters are non-notable, they just are. Claims that its deletion will destroy a template or go against a WikiProjects guidelines are irrelevant. It is not the intent of Wikipedia to be better than RCDB. It is the intent of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. -- NORTH talk 05:47, 19 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brain_Teaser&oldid=1070962541"