Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megacoaster


 * 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 Redirected to Roller coaster --Stephen 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Megacoaster

 * – (View AfD) (View log)



Unreferenced neologism possibly derived from a video game; strongly appears to be original research. And it's "strato-" not "strata-", unless the roller coaster is traveling through sedimentary rocks. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Found a CNN article that mentions the term, but don't know if it's enough. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There are references for these terms; see, , , . Some of them seem to point out that there are "specs" for being a mega-coaster (it really is never one word in the references, it's either hyphenated or it is two words), but if that is the case, the specs in this article are incorrect (one had a height of 188 feet, which is below the range stated in the article). It seems that this specification might exist, but the author needs some serious references in order to keep it. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the term is used occasionally throughout the 'net, but I don't see any source about the term, or any coverage beyond the trivial. Per WP:NEO, finding blogs and articles that use the term or mention it in passing is insufficient to support writing articles about the term. That is original synthesis of primary source material. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect gigacoaster and stratacoaster with/to Intamin. These terms are widely used on enthusiast forums but you'd struggle to find reputable sources for them. Intamin actually market their 300ft+ model as a gigacoaster, though I doubt it's worthy of its own article as only one exists! Sea serpent 85 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Seaserpent85 comments. Mh29255 (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per above Mr Senseless (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the merge proposal: I'm fine with it, except that Roller coaster already has all the information that we would want to merge. Can we just close the AfD as a redirect to that section? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has anyone asked the roller coaster project about this?  I believe these are designations they use. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the most active contributor at the WikiProject and I wouldn't say that's the case. A lot of contibutors are enthusiasts, hence they use these terms which are essentially jargon. These terms are already mentioned in the roller coaster article and I see no need for them having their own articles. Sea serpent 85 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per Seaserpent85's arguments. They're not really notable enough to have their own articles, but should be mentioned on the main roller coaster article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Eleland. These articles do not really stand up on their own (if they do, then only over in Wikitionary), and redirecting to within the Roller coaster article seems like the more sensible place to go. - 52 Pickup (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (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.