Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Article Clean-Up

WikiProject Amusement Parks

Stage 1

Roller coasters of the models listed below share the same layout (or very similar ones). Within each model, the coasters do not vary greatly from one another. The articles that are NOT bolded are the ones in question.

PLEASE NOTE: Any articles in this list that you think should NOT be deleted, please list in the comment section. Also, articles that are crossed out will not be deleted.

Boomerang (roller coaster)

Suspended Family Coaster

Suspended Looping Coaster

SkyLoop

X-Coaster
~~BuzzSaw (roller coaster)~~

Wild Mouse roller coaster

Other

Zyklon (Morey's Piers)

Support

Oppose

Comments

Any articles in this list that you think should NOT be deleted, please list here.

Could there be a list made of all of the articles that would be affected by this change? Isn't it possible that some of these articles would be notable, while others would not? —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that the premise of the motion is sound, and I do support it, I do see Jclavet's point. Although I would think it'd be very difficult to find a "notable" Boomerang or other mass-production model. Exceptions would be for the first production install of a given model (provided sources back up it is indeed the first) or some other truly significant event ... being Park X's tallest coaster wouldn't be truly significant, in my opinion. --McDoob AU93 00:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this methodology. Each article individually should be reviewed on it's on merit. Many of these articles can be improved, but due to the vast number of amusement park related articles and few editors who add content, they remain basic for years. We should be focused on improving these articles, not deleting them from existence. FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is proposing a wholesale deletion of these articles sight unseen, and there is apparently some consensus in at least considering each on its own notability. However, if it's merely an article saying the install exists without adding anything more than that, it should probably go. --McDoob AU93 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure some of these rides that are identical had been merged together in the past only to be separated once again, not sure exactly why?--Nickvet419 (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FirstDrop87: Maybe I wasn't clear enough but this has nothing to do with improving articles. We are just trying to figure out which articles are notable and which aren't whether they are a stub or GA (I can already tell you that if this goes smoothly, several GA's will likely get deleted). The ones that are deemed not-notable are the ones that end up getting deleted. @Nickvet419: Sure that may be the case and if everything goes smoothly they should end up getting deleted.--Dom497 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also just wanted to drop a note saying that Windjammer Surf Racers probably shouldn't be deleted.--Dom497 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wild Mouse (Pleasure Beach Blackpool) should be improved and kept. Any wooden wild mouse is rare and historic enough to merit its own page. Eureka Mountain Mine Ride seems well written and referenced and worthy of keeping in my opinion.—JlACEer (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, BuzzSaw (roller coaster), Primeval Whirl, Arkham Asylum – Shock Therapy, Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster, and Goofy's Sky School should be kept because the articles contain substantial enough information to stand on their own, and/or they have far more riders and are in more notable parks than many others in their categories. Wild Mouse (Pleasure Beach Blackpool) is historically significant. Additionally, I think that a lot of these articles have information that should be moved to the articles of the amusement park they are located in. The first thing that comes to my mind is information about lawsuits and incidents. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out articles that will not be deleted.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this some thought and initially supported the notion. And then I quickly changed my mind. The reason why is something I overlooked above: If an article is GA, then the article has notability; said article would never get GA if it didn't have notability, because GA requires verifiability. If the article is verifiable and meets GA, then the article is obviously notable. Notability is not temporary. Given the idea that several GA's will likely get deleted as a result of this proposal, I don't think this is the correct action to take. --hmich176 21:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmich176: Actually, you are incorrect. Notability is not part of the GA-criteria and articles that are not notable can still become GA's. The reason being is because the job of determining if an article is notable or not is really up to Articles for Deletion, not GA reviewers. Read here for proof--Dom497 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497:This is because a GA review looks specifically at article content; article content is not part of notability. However, the second part of the GA review is verifiability. Verifiability is a function of notability. With that said, I believe most roller coasters fit the tentpoles of notability. Significant coverage, reliable sourcing that is independent of the subject isn't very difficult to find for many roller coasters. And I believe this doesn't have an issue with presumed notability. --hmich176 22:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmich176:Finding reliable sources for many roller coasters isn't hard???? I'm sorry but for many roller coasters its hard to find reliable sources. Plus many don't have significant coverage.--Dom497 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497, FirstDrop87, Hmich176, Jclavet, JlACEer, McDoobAU93, and Nickvet419: Sorry for bringing you all back here, but since it has been a week since the last comment, I thought I would ping everyone who has been involved up until this point. For a while I have been considering drafting up a proposal similar to this, but I never got around to it. I think for starters we should have a focus on overall improvement, not a discussion about whether individual articles should be kept or deleted. My goals for the improvement of the above list of articles would be to:

Remove unnecessary duplication across articles of a similar subject. Leaving articles as is for future improvement, merging or deleting them may be discussed on a case-by-case basis, based on the article's current scope and its potential for improvement. A blanket statement like "It's an article about a standard Boomerang so we should delete it", should be avoided in favour of searching to see if anything notable could be added to the article that would warrant its separation from the other rides of its type.
Improve the structure of ride model articles. SkyLoop is the only GA of this bunch so that could be a good starting point for a discussion about the structure of the others.
Improve the referencing of ride model articles. Some of the individual ride articles may contain some good references that would be useful in the model articles. We should aim to propagate these through to the model articles regardless of the outcome of point #1 above.
I would say we should also apply a blanket rule of any article that is already a GA should be left as is. To get to that level, the article has obviously had some extensive work done. Much of the information in a GA article wouldn't fit elsewhere (e.g. park article, model article, etc) so we'd essentially be losing all of that information if a deletion or merger was to take place.

Thoughts? Themeparkgc Talk 04:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had supported the merge of identical rides before as long as the individual information of each ride wasn't lost.--Nickvet419 (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

I think we should add Zyklon (Morey's Piers) to the list for removal. I petitioned for its removal more than a year ago and was unsuccessful. The moderator at the time said the article should be left with the hope that it will be improved. There have been no improvements.—JlACEer (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the article to the list.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 2

After stage 1 is complete