Talk:Rollie's Coaster

Amusement Parks: Roller Coasters Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Morey's Piers.

Redirect from AFD?[edit]

@GoneIn60:

Pinging you as you are a lead editor in project amusement parks.

Why did someone back in 2012 revert the edit to change this into a redirect? The AFD discussion had a consensus on redirect and no one performed it. Do you or anyone else know why this is still an article? AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88:: Well, any editor could search the history here to find out. It looks like this edit by Dplcrnj on August 19, 2012, unilaterally reversed the AfD decision. A warning about that from IronGargoyle was given here, and it looks like a few references were added since then to backup some of the claims, turning it into a proper stub article.

Should it remain as a standalone article? Unless we really think it's a notable subject that can eventually be expanded beyond 10-15 sentences, it probably should be put back to a redirect. Any coverage of the coaster that is necessary to keep can be moved to the park's main article. I don't think another AfD would be needed to decide that either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has multiple reliable and independent sources. It should not be returned to a redirect. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A closer look here reveals that there are only three non-primary sources to consider in regard to the article's notability, one of which is RCDB.com. RCDB is reliable for statistics, but it does not in any way support the case for a standalone article. So that leaves us with two. Both of those are being cited for ride review comments, and the comments themselves make the coaster seem insignificant by referring to the ride experience as mild or mediocre. So aside from proof that the coaster exists, we have very, very little to go on in terms of notability. A revisit in an AfD would likely reach the same conclusion; the article content here should be merged into Morey's Piers (which unsurprisingly doesn't even mention the roller coaster, considering it is insignficant). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the reviews are not what matters. What matters is that there are reviews to be found in reliable, independent sources (there are more than just these two btw). So what if the reviews say the ride is mild or mediocre? WP:GNG doesn't mandate that coverage addresses any particular topic (e.g., ride safety, history, architectural uniqueness) and it certainly does not mandate that the coverage is positive or laudatory. While it would certainly be possible to open another AfD, I don't think that's a warranted or a useful direction for project time. I am also worried that you thought this could be reverted to a redirect without further discussion. That shows a disappointing misunderstanding of policy. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IronGargoyle, I must have missed your reply all those years ago. First, let me state that I have cleaned up several of the references and removed improperly cited claims. The article, in its cleaner form, now contains a grand total of 4 references, 3 of which are secondary sources. A thorough web search turns up two additional reliable sources here and here. Let's break these down:

Official site – A simple description of the ride at Morey's Piers website
RCDB – A very simple database entry with very few details
The Roller Coaster Lover's Companion – Ride appears in a very long list among hundreds of coasters labeled with a simple ride rating and no description
Philadelphia Inquirer – Only mention states, "a family-style roller coaster called Rollies Coaster...[is] new this year"
Atlantic City Weekly – A few sentences that essentially repeat the description given by the park's website
Coaster-Net – Adds a few details about the ride's appearance and then describes the layout.

Only sources #5 and #6 should be used to evaluate WP:SIGCOV. The rest either briefly mention the topic in passing or are not independent of the subject, so we can cross those off. Of the two that remain, neither source appears to contain the level of detail necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Various amusement rides often come in with a bang, receiving flash-in-the-pan news coverage of a promotional nature, but the insignificant ones rarely attain sustained coverage over time, offering little-to-no opportunity for expansion. Rollie's Coaster is a perfect example of this, a dime a dozen roller coaster that should be merged into a larger topic, the Morey's Piers park article. The information can be preserved in a ride chart that lists the ride and a brief description – a good example of one is at Kings Island#Action Zone.

In a nutshell, standalone articles for many rides are overkill. We should also keep in mind the previous result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollies Coaster. Curious to hear your thoughts. If needed, we can solicit outside opinion, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]