Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switchback (rollercoaster)


 * 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 merge to ZDT's Amusement Park. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Switchback (rollercoaster)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge into its parent article, ZDT's Amusement Park. Very little published information available, which is not likely to grow at this point (as is the case with roller coasters which get the most press at the time of release). This demonstrates low notability as well. There was a misconception years ago in WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks that every coaster needed to have its own article. That is definitely not the case. GoneIn60 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to ZDT's Amusement Park: Per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojo1498 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge [was "Keep, tentatively"]. There is significant information in the largish infobox, which I fear would be lost if a merge was done (the suggested target article has one infobox for the overall park, and I suspect the merger would not add an infobox for this one ride.  There is a significant assertion of notability for this ride, as having the world record for steepest wooden roller-coaster.  I don't see what would be gained by forcing a merger.  A friendly alternative to an AFD would have been to edit at the suggested target article, demonstrating what would be done there, and asking at Talk page(s) about merging, even making a merger proposal.  An AFD is by definition unfriendly, is headed towards forcing a change which would destroy the vision that other editor(s) were trying to develop.  Here, the topic seems significant and I don't see that a forcing-type judgement by external editors will help development of content.   Note, a decision to "Keep" here still allows constructive discussion and perhaps a merger to take place, by discussion at article Talk pages. -- do  ncr  am  01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * doncram, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in with your thoughts. I think as experienced editors, we realize there is often more than one way to approach a situation like this one. I would generally agree that discussion on the talk page of either the article in question or the target article of the merger is a good alternative (or at least a good first step prior to an AfD). In articles dealing with lesser-known topics that generate very little traffic, going that route often results in a fruitless endeavor. Currently, the amusement park article as well as the coaster article average less than 10 views per day over the last 3 months (9 and 6, respectively). Fully aware of this, I chose to take it straight to an AfD. It is a good point, however, and I'm glad you raised it.As for the concern that significant details in the infobox would be lost in a merger, I should point out that this can be accomplished in as little as two sentences. Here's an example of what can be merged into ZDT's Amusement Park:


 * 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.