Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobra (Venture Rides)
Source: 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cobra (Venture Rides) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, this ride fails the GNG (as there isn't any notability guideline for roller coasters). There is an evident lack of notability, and the article makes claim to none. Someone might also find a place to merge. Nolelover It's almost football season! 15:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nom said it themself, there isn't any notability guideline for roller coasters. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? The lack of a specific guideline means that AfD can't remove the article? That can't possibly be what you mean, can it? Because that makes no sense. All specific notability guidelines derive from the general notability guideline, which applies to everything. gnfnrf (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MoonLichen, just because there are no specific notability guidelines on the different types of carpets found at Lowes doesn't mean we keep an article on each one. Nolelover It's almost football season! 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? The lack of a specific guideline means that AfD can't remove the article? That can't possibly be what you mean, can it? Because that makes no sense. All specific notability guidelines derive from the general notability guideline, which applies to everything. gnfnrf (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - No sources to satisfy GNG, and I couldn't find any. I consider the delete weak because there are reference pages to the ride on several databases, just none that I think look reliable. I find it possible that some print carnival ride encyclopedia may exist which could be used to source the article reliably. gnfnrf (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just note that reliable sources alone do not prove notability. I don't know exactly how a roller coaster is proved notable, but a database entry on it (of which I'm sure there are many), does not give it a reason to exist on wikipedia. Nolelover It's almost football season! 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What WP:GNG says, as I expect you know, is that the presumption of notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I found significant coverage in independent sources, so all I commented on was that I didn't think they qualified as reliable. But, if someone were to show up with a similar source that DID look reliable, I wouldn't be surprised. gnfnrf (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh...I see. My findings were that the information on the web about the Cobra (and there was a little bit) wasn't really significant. One-line database entries do not notability make. Nolelover It's almost football season! 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What WP:GNG says, as I expect you know, is that the presumption of notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I found significant coverage in independent sources, so all I commented on was that I didn't think they qualified as reliable. But, if someone were to show up with a similar source that DID look reliable, I wouldn't be surprised. gnfnrf (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just note that reliable sources alone do not prove notability. I don't know exactly how a roller coaster is proved notable, but a database entry on it (of which I'm sure there are many), does not give it a reason to exist on wikipedia. Nolelover It's almost football season! 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 23 March 2011 (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.