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 Redirect to List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 ( talk) 23:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Frontier Lift

Frontier Lift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Author does not establish notability. Ride is pretty standard, not deserving of its own page. Astros4477 ( Talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge - I recommend this article be merged (or renamed) with a new article for the Sky Ride, which is the existing version of the ride. I looked through the book Cedar Point Queen of American Water Places and could not find a mention of the Frontier Lift; however, the Sky Ride does play an important role in the expansion of Cedar Point during that period. Since the Frontier Lift was practically an extension of Sky Ride, it would be an appropriate subset. FirstDrop87 ( talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Merge/Redirect – We have articles that cover model overviews, such as chairlift, and unless a particular installation has something very unique about it (and a significant number of reliable sources have written about this unique quality), then the installation shouldn't have its own article. This is a situation in which a standalone article isn't warranted. If some mention is really needed, it can be added to the chairlift article (or similar one) that covers the amusement park version of this aerial lift. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Updated my stance per discussion below.

• Delete – Not a really unique ride that had a significant impact to establish notability for its own article. If needed, information could be merged into the Cedar Point article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge, clearly, once you see it is covered appropriately already at List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift, leaving redirect to that table row. I say merge not redirect because target lacks references included here. The table row description is about as long as this article and can be longer. The list article seems encyclopedic while this article seems just trivial/crufty on its own.-- do ncr am 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

doncram, the references are fan websites and not exactly reliable sources. To date, there has been nothing significant published in reliable sources about this ride. It is already briefly mentioned at the target and supported by reliable sources that exist there. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Of course there should be a redirect at least, right? To the continuing Wikipedia coverage, in a table row in the list-article of former attractions. I see no sources given within the description there. And surely you are not arguing the list-article's coverage cannot include sources. With this article existing, the list entry was sourced implicitly by the sources here; they need to be transferred. I cannot see first source but second is very convincing with photographic evidence (yes provided by fans but valid). It existed. It went through forest. One of its stations is gone, other survives ( at least to 2014 date of photo). There are no controversial assertions. What other sources are there? If better sources are put in and no info from here transfers over, then sure, the outcome could be redirect rather than merge. (But your vote is still showing as delete so am I missing something?). - do ncr am 03:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Its existence within an article is not being contested; its notability as a standalone article is. Yes, photographs can be legitimately considered regardless of the source's quality, but the prose in this article needs an adequate source. You're absolutely right that the prose written at List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift does not contain inline citations nor does it appear to be adequately sourced, but this deletion discussion doesn't cover the state of that list article. The prose content at both locations is cause for concern. As for resorting to a redirect, I'm not entirely opposed to that, but consider this. Should all items in this list have redirects? I don't think that's necessary, and therefore, if the entire page was deleted without leaving a redirect in its place, then I'm not sure doing so would create a disadvantage for the "Frontier Lift" topic as opposed to the other attractions in that list that don't have redirects either. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, some other items in the List of former Cedar Point attractions have full articles about them. But for those that don't have a separate article, yes there probably should be a redirect for each of them. Why not have them? And, there may be redirects for some of them already. Checking...

• Broadway Trip did not have one but I just created it.
• The Cyclone did not have one, but I just added it to the Cyclone (disambiguation) page, which is the equivalent of having a redirect.
• Dip the Dips Scenic Railway was already a redirect, since 2012
• Disaster Transport is a separate article
• High Frolics has been a redirect since 2012
• "Leap the Dips" did not have a redirect. Searching on it gives suggestion Leap-The-Dips, a different ride in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I just added a "For" link at the top of that, to help readers find their way to the Cedar Point one.
• "Racer" did not have a redirect. I just added it to the Racer disambiguation page, to serve readers looking for it instead of two other "Racer" roller-coasters listed there.
• I continued down the list, adding to "for" links, disambiguation pages, etc., through the end of the section on roller coasters. I conclude that my review suggests there should be redirects or disambiguation page entries or separate articles or "for" links for at least every roller coaster ride in the list-article.

For this AFD, the proper decision is to conclude with merge/redirect, i.e. for there to be a redirect left behind, and for the article not to be outright deleted, 1) to help readers find their way to it, 2) to prevent an editor from creating an article at the topic name without awareness of the former Cedar Point ride, 3) as an wp:ATD(?) to avoid the unnecessary insult of outright deleting others' contributions, which is a real turn-off driving editors away from wikipedia, and 4) in order to comply with our commitment to editors that their work be credited. If/when there are additional sources and someone takes time to develop a better Frontier Lift article, that should be done in place at the redirect, with the edit history intact, crediting original editors with their contributions. There is no reason not to have a redirect, and there are positive reasons to have one. -- do ncr am 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Good points above. I do not participate in a lot of these deletion discussions, and as I said earlier, I was not all that opposed to the idea of a redirect. I've updated my position above. We can merge the sources/info for now into the list article. Eventually, that article will need to be revamped, and the shoddy sourcing can be later removed if deemed necessary. Thanks for taking the time to respond. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 20:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of former Cedar Point attractions#Frontier Lift where this is appropriately covered. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2016 (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.