Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOBRA (roller coaster)


 * 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. Secret account 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

KOBRA (roller coaster)

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

A stub about a roller coast that is scheduled to start rolling next year. Prod tag disputed by the article's creator. Problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Add these two sentences to Chessington World of Adventures. Even when it is finished, this particular roller coaster is not likely to be noteworthy enough to merit a full article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SAVE. Do you remember when SAW - The Ride article first started? That was only two sentances long and you idiots never put the deletion tag on it.

--Cbbcfan (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion But I think Cbbcfan's comment should stand. It's a fair comment, and I think we're all grown up enough to stand being called idiots.  Canthusus (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A more direct opinion from this user is seen at this diff, to give some reference of weight of the comment left here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not even a roller coaster... "amusement ride" is more accurate. Rides of this type aren't in the consensus of amusement park rides notability. WP:N troubles per that and a duck test. Wikipedia is not a directory of every carnival and amusement park ride on the planet. Having checked, "Disc-O" is not a classification of roller coaster, which would have the closest tangent to notability possible. Unless this ride breaks a variety of world records or reaches notability in some other form, this just isn't going to work here, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS not withstanding. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on incivility from User:Cbbcfan, though I'd suggest a reading of WP:GNG and WP:TALK to learn some of the proper vocabulary in Wikipedia discussions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It might be worth noting that User:Cbbcfan has been blocked indefinitely for editing abuse. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hum. Noted. Thanks for the notice-- that alone can't "count" and theoretically shouldn't matter, however since I see it's almost exclusively related to matters in this article and this AfD, I suppose that suggests a heavy COI in any comments, on top of the COI of being the article primary contributor. Just... on paper. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it... Cbbcfan created the article. It was quickly tagged as an "article for deletion".  The user took offence that people were "trying to delete the article" (possibly not understanding that AfD is a discussion process, and also feeling ownership of the article) so reverted the AfD notice.  This got the user in an edit war with lots of other editors (myself included) over whether the AfD template should remain, resulting in an inevitable 72 hour ban to allow things to cool down.  At the same time, Cbbcfan's comment was removed from this page, thus excluding him/her from the discussion - this really wound the user up and they responded with some very angry words, resulting in an indefinite ban.  So, yes, Cbbcfan has been blocked indefinitely for editing abuse, and that was related to this article and this discussion.  But I don't think that's a COI that's relevant to whether the article should stay or go.  We've got someone who has made useful contributions in the past, who got him/herself in a corner through misunderstanding the process, and responded rather too angrily (personally, I'm not convinced that indefinite block was appropriate - time to calm down might have been more constructive, and I would support a reinstatement if the user requested one and showed that they had learned).  All of which is to say that I don't think the status or personality of the original editor of the article is relevant.  What matters here is whether the subject of the article is sufficiently notable, and is likely to contain sufficient content for inclusion in Wikipedia. Canthusus (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that the blocked/unblocked status of the article's author does not directly affect the worthiness of the article regarding deletion. It does have some weight on the credibility of the contributor if there are some questionable, unsourced sections of the author's contributions. We should also look at the contributor's overall contributions. This may be a one-time event in which the contributor (and possibly the blocking admin) overreacted. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's not a roller coaster; it's a flat ride. But in any case, the only coverage about it I could find is  which isn't sufficient to establish this as a notable ride. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (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.