Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Roller Coaster Poll


 * 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   delete.  — fetch ·  comms   00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Best Roller Coaster Poll

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a website. Doubtful notability, claims to be "widely regarded as the best and most accurate of any roller coaster poll available due to its ranking algorithm" but cites its own website as the source. Seems almost to be an advertisement for the site itself. A quick Google search turned up no secondary sources on this, seems to be self-promoting and a minor website at best. Velociraptors (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY DELETE; violates WP:NOT on several levels, plus WP:ADVERT --mhking (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no secondary sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Firstly, it is a page that I have created and I am willing to work on it to prevent it from being deleted. One of the main reasons behind creating it was almost 70 Wikipedia pages refer to this poll and it is widely regarded across the world. Yes, in its current form there is only one secondary source. To please the lack of secondary sources argument, I'll add some more secondary sources within the next few days such as:       ...etc. A lot of these sources are from websites across the world, with a lot of them considering the poll as one of the best, if not the best. Therefore, I think the page should stay with the minor modifications I have stated above.  Themeparkgc   Talk  00:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have included the secondary sources listed above in the article. Is more work required to prevent it from being deleted? Themeparkgc   Talk  02:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Most of the sources in the article aren't very reliable, and and  are brief mentions.  is at least mostly about the subject, but it's part of a travel blog of the LA Times. Are there any newspaper or magazine articles about this site?  P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Not so notable. Big  top  みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there anything that can be done to save this page from deletion? Themeparkgc   Talk  08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Find significant coverage in a couple of reliable sources. Have any major newspapers or magazines written articles about this poll? I think even one major news outlet reporting on this in depth would convince me to !vote keep. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the LA Times article would have been considered a reliable source. The article has been written by an LA Times writer and is published on the LA Times website. I can't see how this doesn't constitute a reliable source. I have found an article from the Vancouver Courier archives. Before I add it to the article, does it constitute a reliable source? Themeparkgc   Talk  21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do admire the fact that you're working to improve the article. The problem is that even though you do now cite an article from the LA times, that article is not about the website. The article mentions "Mitch Hawker's Wooden Roller Coaster Poll" as a link underneath the panel of experts section. So, even though the site is linked to and Mitch Hawker is mentioned, the article you cited is the independent research of an LA times writer about the best roller coasters and NOT actually about the website (despite a minor mention in the article). The Vancouver Courier article seems better, because it mentions "In the meantime, it was recently ranked number one in Canada, number nine in the world, and third in the Over 40 category in the most extensive roller coaster poll ever, conducted by Mitch Hawker, the unofficial coaster guru for enthusiasts around the world". This is better, but it is still just one paragraph. What I'd like to see is an article or two that specifically discusses your roller coaster poll website, or some aspect thereof, from a secondary source like the LA times. So, basically, an article specifically *about* the website. If you can provide such source(s), I will gladly withdraw my nomination. As is, I think you're getting there. Even more minor mentions like you've provided would probably help to establish notability. Thanks, Velociraptors (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Blog articles and press releases are not adequate. I have some sympathy because it's difficult to find mainstream coverage of amusement park-related subjects, but WP:WEB rules the day. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.