Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euthanasia 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia Coaster

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

Non-notable concept for a fairground ride that kills you... there are references to it, but with the possible exception of the Wired piece, they're unreliable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catfish Jim, thanks for your concern. I created this article, as I think it satisfies the notability criteria: multiple sources cover the concept (or, actually, the designer made it into a scale-model that is on display): they are independent from the subject, except for the link to his own blog. This source is, IMHO, permittable per WP:PRIMARY: the data is not interpreted from his blog by myself, secondary sources are used and cited. If I understand the WP:SOURCES guidelines correctly, when secondary/tertiary sources are used to establish notability, primary sources can be used to fill in details. I would be glad to incorporate changes if you can point me a mistake in this.

Regarding notability of the sources, I would say the Wired-article definitely qualifies as reliable and the io9 source is linked to from the New York Times website. There are several more websites that have written about the concept: 1, 2, 3 (French). On a final note, and maybe I am misreading things here, implying the article is less worthy of inclusion because it is a 'fairground ride' might be a bit weird - if it is written about by several reliable sources, then it would seem it is interesting to people although fairly trivial, I admit. But then again, excuse me if I am misreading here. It would be nice if we could get a consensus on improving the article with a picture/drawing and more sources instead of deleting it - I think it would be a waste. Looking forward to hearing from you and thanks again for your critical thought. Kind regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, nothing to do with fairground rides being unworthy. My contention is that this 'concept' is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Whether the Wired news piece is a reliable source or not, it amounts to trivial coverage. A couple of sentences about one exhibit in a general reviews of an art exhibition does not amount to signifcant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have some value as fantasy art. Some might think it in abhorrent or in bad taste but that could go for a lot of art. It is not aimed at any specific group and does not seem to have any moral implications in itself (Neither is it in anyone's wildest imagination likely to be constructed for either of the 'proposed' purposes). Additionally, it is of interest from a physiological point of view. If the physics have been accurately calculated it gives a graphic idea of death by anoxia which is not in itself at all painful or unpleasant, although the g-force factors make the idea rather less than attractive as they could be unpleasant. It seems to have that surrealist approach that makes us think about things in new ways - a valid intention in terms of art. It is probably not meant seriously in any practical way, just as a concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleskine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The question is not whether the piece has 'value' as an artwork, but rather whether it is notable. WP:GNG summarises the general guidelines for notablity. There must be multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently, I'm not seeing evidence of this cited in the article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree with Catfish Jim on our criteria: we should look at the notability guideline, not at whether it is "valuable". But I think that the content on the design in most of the sources quoted in the article amounts to more than a 'trivial mention' (WP:GNG). It is hard to judge on what exactly qualifies as 'significant', but if the information in the sources can make an article of the current length, and without original research used to extract data (WP:GNG), I do think the coverage is significant. Edit Metro.co.uk published an article on the Coaster today, I just added it to the article.

Comment That's more like it... It'd be nice if the 'art' aspect was emphasised in the article, and there were references from art journals, but I suspect this is enough to survive the AFD. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage easily adequate for this Modest Proposal. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks to me like it has received some coverage other than being listed as a part of an exhibition itself, so while there's not a ton of sources I think there's enough to keep this. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2011 (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.