Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid roller coaster (2nd nomination)

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 keep. I'm going with keep right now. Here is what I suggest:

1. Improve article OR 2. Propose a merger OR 3. Purpose a redirect

On the appropriate page. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid roller coaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my opinion, the key issue here is that while various amusement parks describe their roller coaster rides as "hybrid roller coasters", this term does not appear to be used independently of those businesses. This article is significantly different enough to the one deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid roller coaster in 2012 to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or anyone else have an archive of the original deleted article? Also, what do you exactly mean by "used independently of those businesses?" Do you mean by just the parks themselves or the general public? 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SingingZach I suggest you ask a friendly administrator to WP:Userfy#Userfication of deleted content the old article to you. Coasterpedia sums it up, I think. See Coastercritic too. I note that there is a category for Hybrid rollercoasters in wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Reposting from article talk page in response to SingingZach). This is further evidence that this page should be deleted. You are trying to make an encyclopedic article out of enthusiast jargon. So far all of you come up with for sources are glorified enthusiast blogs and RCDB entries. The only news source from WKSU likely got that information from Cedar Point's press release. CP marketing jumped on the chance to have a new coaster type — the "Hyper Hybrid," but marketing departments are even worse sources than enthusiast blogs. There isn't enough information to make this an encyclopedic article. I applaud your effort, but I also encourage you to consider not putting any more time into this.—JlACEer (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JlACEer Hold your fire. I didn't use these as sources. I was suggesting lines of research and inquiry. Chill. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that — that is why a prefaced the entry with (repost). I do think the information is relevant enough to be included here. I thought it would be clear enough that it is not directed at you — I will modify the lead in.—JlACEer (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. Sorry for the overreaction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I probably couldn't do anything else here anyways. What is featured here is about all that I could find in my limited research. Unfortunately, nobody really explains well what a hybrid is, and that's even getting past the lack of reliable sources. I was hoping that someone else may have more to contribute but I'm thinking not. At this point we should wait for the review process to conclude and leave it at that. At worst it could be just a brief mention on what a hybrid coaster is elsewhere. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Coasterpedia is just another encyclopedia about amusement parks and rides, and I wouldn't think that would be a reliable source. And yes I checked for where they got their information and all they listed was RCDB. Which we came to the conclusion that that isn't a reliable source as they fail to define what a "hybrid" is. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. If not kept, then Merge to Roller Coaster. It would be a worthwhile addition there. It is barely mentioned there, and the article is short on sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if this article ends up being deleted. Cause that is looking likely. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 15:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Hybrid roller coasters exist. https://people.com/travel/busch-gardens-new-hybrid-roller-coaster-will-be-tallest-in-the-u-s-and-fastest-in-the-world/ talks about one of the hybrid roller coasters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/travel/new-roller-coasters-2018.html and elsewhere talk about specific ones. This article has enough valid content, no sense merging it to the main roller coaster article with just a few sentences. Dream Focus 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's worth covering. There are articles for wooden coasters and steel ones, and there's a section in the roller coaster article on composite ones which is a couple long paragraphs. You could merge this article into that that section, but roller coaster is already way long, so actually pulling most of the material from roller coaster into this article instead, and then using the "main" template to point to it would be better I think.

We do invent terms for article titles from time to time, when an article is called for but we don't have a good name. It's not unheard of, so it's not a deal killer. As for WP:GNG, we don't want to be blindly rulebound -- we don't have an article in TIME magazine to point, but we have enough smaller refs to make a nice, plenty-long article, with most everything ref'd, which is on a perfectly encyclopedia subject, and which some non-negligable number of people are going to be interested in, and that's what matters. What's not to like? Herostratus (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect To the main roller coaster article roller coaster. Since there doesn't seem to be anything especially unique or in-depth enough about the this article to warrant a fork from the main one. Plus, from what I can tell the sourcing is extremely lacking anyway. As it looks like there's only single usable source from a news outlet that likely created their article off of a press release. Other then that, all I'm seeing is blog posts, primary sources, and a few extremely trivial mentions in books about roller coaster design that are not directly about hybrid ones.

It's also worth mentioning that the term "hybrid roller coaster" was created by the roller coaster community, not the parks that originally built them. According to the roller coaster article Six Flags just called their "hybrid roller coaster" a wooden one. So, having an article about hybrid roller coasters as if they are a technical term that used to describe a specific, widely accepted and built type of roller coaster is seriously going into original research territory. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A section for "hybrid roller coaster" has already been added to roller coaster, so possibly just a redirect is all that is needed here. Unfortunately, nobody can officially define what a "hybrid coaster" is anyways, partially due to what you said as the term was coined by the roller coaster community. I think that the quick mention their is all that should be done with this topic for a long while unless very substantial sources come out about what they really are. Although I find that very unlikely. 🎵SingingZach🎵^(talk) 15:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to roller coaster. I can confidently say unlike the time of the first AfD (2012), the term hybrid roller coaster is starting to become terminology in mainstream mediums. However, at this time, I don't think there is adequate material about the term and type itself even if there are more and more roller coasters being classified as such. I do favor using the terminology so long as it's transcribed in reliable sources, but not confident in an article by itself just yet. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a merge, but just to point out that Roller coaster is 44kb now and WP:SIZERULE (granted, just a guideline, but still) says that while at <40kb the length is fine, at >50kb it's time to start considering spinning off parts into separate articles. So merging this in, and with normal development and growth of the rollercoaster article over time, pretty soon we'll be maybe spinning it back out again (or something else anyway). Herostratus (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As things currently are there's a lot in the roller coaster article that could be chopped out because it isn't referenced and probably won't be or is just completely unnecessary (referenced or not). So I doubt there will be a need to spin it off any time soon, if at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.