Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incidents at independent parks


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidents at independent parks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

If an incident is truly notable it should be included in the main theme park's article or have it's own article. As it is, the scope of this article is basically newsclippings that meet the original research criteria in the lead of the article.  MBisanz  talk 07:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, delete. There is no encyclopedic explanation for this list other than cruft from clippings.  I'd like to toss in the obligatory WP:BLP regarding identifying the victims of accidents.  Keegan (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think it is a useful summary list of incidents that makes it easier to find these incidents. Yes, the incidents can be listed in each individual independent park article but this summary is helpful/useful.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

*Dunno Instinctively I was a delete, until I read it. I think shuffling them off to the article of each park is actually a bad idea on two counts, first they'll be deleted one by one as not notable or undue weight, or something like that, and secondly I think it dtracts from the notable concept that amusement rides are fallible. Perhaps retitling it to Funfair accidents would be a better approach. Greglocock (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete just a dupe of Amusement_park_accidents Greglocock (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to Greglocock's last comment opinion, it is not a duplicate of that other article. His original assessment of why the summary article exists is exactly right -- it is better to have these pieces spun off from each park's article so that they are more easily found/tracked/referenced as their own topic instead of forcing the reader to visit each article separately and hope that there is consistency in the writing/referencing. As for Keegan's comment regarding BLP, you'll notice that the victim's names are purposefully left out of the article specifically for that reason - it's an article about the incidents, not about the victims.  The article definitely meets notability criteria for the various incidents (as opposed to WP:OR) with every item being appropriately referenced in mainstream media (although some editing, granted, may need to be done to cull a few items out with regards of the severity of each item - as is the nature for any WP article).  SpikeJones (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Incidents involving amusement park rides are rare relative to the number of rides given per year, and thus are notable in that rarity. Agree that victim names should be expunged from the article, since it's the event itself that is notable, not necessarily the person or people involved, and removing the names does not compromise the article. Like any Wikipedia article, I won't argue that this one couldn't use some cleanup, and would volunteer my services accordingly. As to listing them instead in their respective parks' articles, I would counter that such placement would give undue weight to them, and thus it would be preferable to include them here instead. -- McDoob  AU  93  04:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept it should be cross referenced consistently. Looking at the first two parks that first park, Blackpool Pleasure Beach, does not link back to this article but does link to an article entitled 'Incidents at European parks' and the second park, Coney Island, does not link to any mention of accidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeraRose (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Poor article cross-referencing is a reason to mark the article for improvement, not deletion.SpikeJones (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Do we really need AP Accidents as well as Incidents at APs? Surely a merge between those two makes more sense? And why is Disney* conspicuous by their absence? Greglocock (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The AP accidents article covers the general topic of what "an" amusement park accident is, with metrics and other information. The article being discussed is a summary of incidents that have taken place at parks from independent owners. If you look at the Park Accidents footer, you'll see that there is a link to incidents articles for the major Park companies, including Disney. If the incident articles were merged per your suggestion, you would have an article that would become too unwieldly and would need to be broken out again eventually. SpikeJones (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I don't even think a merge is appropriate. The article in question has some topical overlap with Amusement park accidents, but the treatment is entirely different. The Apa article addresses the subject overall. The Iaip article is, as the plaintiff noted, a collection of individual incidents. However, the incidents are not unrelated, and the collection of them is not unencyclopedic. Most importantly, consider that the Iaip article completes the Template:Amusement_park_accidents collection: where an event doesn't belong in any other article, it should be in Incidents at independent parks. And so, the Iaip article should remain.  — Bigwyrm watch me wake me  10:11, 31 May 2011 (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.