Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverted Coaster (B&M model)

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 merge to Inverted roller coaster. Sandstein 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted Coaster (B&M model)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article named Inverted roller coaster that covers the broad topic of this "type" of coaster. Information about the B&M model (Inverted Coaster) is already in that existing article where it belongs. There is a redirect for "Inverted Coaster" that points to that older article. Anything here in the new article would be unnecessary duplication, and on top of that, this article contains no sources. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page called Suspended Looping Coaster for the Vekoma counterpart. Why can’t the original (and the best version) have its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs)

That's actually a good point. However, the article text in the SLC article should probably be merged into Inverted roller coaster. There's plenty space in one article to cover the various models. Splitting everything out into separate articles isn't really justified in either case. Better to have one decently-sized article that feels complete, rather than several small articles that feel incomplete. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the harm in having different models from different manufacturers? Each series of a well known TV Series aren’t merged into one article, they have their own article. The “Inverted Coaster” page could be used as a summary contents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough coverage in reliable sources to justify notability as Girth Summit mentions below, and there is enough content that justifies splitting off from the main inverted coaster article, then there is no harm in having a dedicated article to the model. I question that we pass both tests here, but if secondary sources can be found that cover the model in detail, then perhaps there would be a good argument to keep. RCDB.com lists the model of each coaster, but we really need more than that. We need sources that really go into detail of the design, talk about the impact on the industry, mention its legacy, etc. Are you aware of any sources that do that? I didn't find any in a quick search. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source in the main inverted roller coaster article, and it's the only secondary source cited there. That's an example of what we need more of. Sometimes one is enough, but in this case, I think we need more than that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Isaacwshearer are you familiar with the concept of notability? The article currently has no sources apart from the website of its manufacturer, which is obviously not independent and so cannot contribute to notability. To convince people that this article should be retained, we will need to establish that the subject passes the general notability guideline - in other words, we'll need to find multiple sources which discuss it in depth, and which are independent, reliable and secondary. I know approximately zero about roller coasters, but they seem to be an area of interest for you - if you can identify suitable sources and mention them here, you might be able to persuade people than an article is warranted. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge More than half the information in this page is already covered in Inverted roller coaster. If the SLC page is any indication there won't be enough secondary sources to allow this page to stand on its own. Delete or merge the Suspended Looping Coaster also. Although I hate to see all that work undone, every single source points back to RCDB.com. These pages lack the secondary sources and notability to stand on their own.—JlACEer (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I have an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs)
Merge to Inverted roller coaster. I think the editor's content forking of Bolliger & Mabillard articles as a whole are somewhat counterproductive, as in the case of this article, but information specifically about this type of model can suffice in the larger space for the roller coaster content so long as it's properly cited. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inverted roller coaster. Balle010 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (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.