Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zyklon (Morey's Piers)

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 KEEP. Rollercoasters are generally considered to be notable ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zyklon (Morey's Piers)[edit]

Zyklon (Morey's Piers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This roller coaster does not appear to be notable. There is a single source and in my searches I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. GB fan 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete Roller coasters are generally considered notable.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Common Outcomes that says roller coasters are generally considered notable. Where is it documented that roller coasters are generally considered notable? GB fan 23:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it is documented but that's always been the way it's been handled. Another administrator, User:TheCatalyst31, deproded Flying School (roller coaster) with this edit so its not just members of WikiProject: Roller Coasters that go by this.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's possible to trump WP:GNG with the notion that "roller coasters are generally considered notable". GregorB (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Prods are an uncontroversial way of deleting an article. Roller coasters might be generally notable enough to survive a prod, but we need to show that this particular one is notable through significant coverage in reliable sources and I do not see it. GB fan 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't quite realize this was a mass produced roller coaster so I've changed it to delete.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Astros: If you believe "Roller coasters are generally considered notable" why did you nominate another roller coaster for deletion?[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 14:10, January 10, 2013
Most of these do not strike me as particularly notable and could easily be covered in the main article (as some already are in fact: compare Giant Wheel (Morey's Piers) with its mention in Morey's Piers#Giant wheel, its only claim for true notability) once irrelevant nonsense is removed (e.g. Ignis Fatuus, particularly the reference to the Philadelphia experiment).
In any case, if this article is deleted, then many of these should go too; merging might be preferable to deletion. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Operating roller coasters are defiantly notable. I could see an argument being made about defunct roller coasters because they're aren't as many reliable sources but I have no doubts that a roller coaster that is currently operating at a park is notable. Reliable sources can always be found about operating roller coasters. Many defunct roller coaster articles don't have articles but I could almost guarantee you could type in your favorite roller coaster and whether its notable or not, it'll have an article. The sources are available and can be used.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to indicate that operating roller coasters are, by default, notable. If reliable sources "can always be found", please find some and add them to the article as no one seems to be able to find the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources we would need to keep this article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete this page. The subject is notable. Wikipedia is about a wealth of information, not about the specific tunnel vision decision on importance based upon the opinion of one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — 108.17.102.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Notability requires evidence: Significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If it is notable, please document this in the article by providing such sourced information. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability. I am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If this is notable as it currently stands, we need to copy the entirety of the "Roller Coster DataBase" to Wikipedia and alter our core policies to accept the Database as a reliable source and ignore or current requirements for notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Morey's Piers. I see no reason to assume all operating roller coasters are notable. (This one is not operating. In fact, even all amusement parks with roller coasters may not necessarily be notable.) WP:GNG applies, but is not met. And, as WP:GNG advises, "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." So: merge, {{R to section}}, keep the existing categories on the redirect page per WP:RCAT. GregorB (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As there are no relaible sources in the article, there is nothing verifiable to merge. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say whether it's reliable or not. It doesn't affect the outcome anyway (if the outcome is defined as having vs not having a standalone article on the subject). GregorB (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets standard notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — 108.17.102.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Can you show us what reliable sources have discussed this roller coaster? GB fan 03:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stricken 108.17.102.92's repeat !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Zyklon entry should probably be added to the Pinfari page but these are small, portable coasters that came in various sizes and configurations. Pinfari built over 60 of these coasters and I don't think any particular Zyklon was significant enough to deserve its own page.JlACEer (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- oprerating, standing but not operating, and defunct roller coasters are notable.

--Starship9000 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This roller coaster is notable, but the page must be improved. I think that sources are reliable. Samuel petan (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Repeated claims by you and several other very new converts to Wikipedia are making this claim without and indication of understanding what we mean by "notable". On Wikipedia, no topic is notable if and only if it is the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:N As discussed above, this subject does not meet that standard. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, while we are at it, the "sources" in the article are one source. While you may think that source is "reliable", there is no reason to believe it is reliable: I see nothing that indicates the "RCDB" is a published source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed, there is only one source, and that is all you are likely to find. The 1991 Publication "Guide to Ride" did not list this coaster as portable coasters were not considered significant enough to be included. The book " A Wild Ride, The Story of Morey's Piers" also makes no mention of this coaster nor does "Wildwood by the Sea." You won't find a listing in any of the popular coaster books like Cartmell's "The Incredible Scream Machine," Coker's "Roller Coaster," Rutherford's "The American Roller Coaster." All those who think this entry should stay are welcome to add other sources, but it is unlikely you will find anything other than an online database listing.
I recently updated the Pinfari wiki page and while doing research discovered the company built over 200 Zyklon coasters. This is just one of 200 small portable coasters. There is nothing "notable" about that.—JlACEer (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhD, Roller Coaster DataBase is infact a reliable sources.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Astros, saying that the RCDB is a reliable source does not establish whether or not it is a "reliable source". This is similar to your assertion "Roller coasters are generally considered notable." Both of these claims are meaningless without evidence to support them. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RCDB is a non-profit website devoted to record keeping of roller coasters. It is a reputable source, unmatched on the net. Every existing roller coaster in the world is in the database. This article is more than notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.29.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Whether RCDB is a reliable source or not (I could accept that it is, if that's the official position of WP Amusement Parks), this still does not amount to significant coverage, as required by WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat vote, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Relies entirely on a single source which is not as reliable as a source might be. Article makes no claim for notabliity and apparently no information is available on which such a claim might be made. Content is minimal; there is no indication of the number of people who used the ride or of its popularity (or lack thereof). The fact that no one can come up with any other source speaks volumes as to notability. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:16, 14 January 2013 (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/Zyklon_(Morey%27s_Piers)&oldid=1075400411"