Deletion of Pegasus (roller coaster)

Comment: into the article for the park. The unsubstantiated claim that it costs millions is great, but sources would be better. Many things that cost millions of dollars get their articles routinely deleted, such as minor shopping malls, libraries, or college dorms. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes I can't find any note that all amusement park rides have been found to ne notable enough for articles in previous AFDs. In the meantime, merge all such stub articles into the article for the amusement park which contains them. If the section on the ride becomes too large (with refs satisfying ) for the article on the park, then and only then split it off. As for it being "permanent" tell that to the rides at Opryland USA or Riverview Park.  Even at parks which are still in operation, rides are regularly replaced. There is no guideline I can find which says all amusement park rides are inherently notable. To have an article, it should meet  or perhaps . The sole source for these rides so far is www.rcdb.com, which appears to be a fan site, and one might question whether it satisfies  and . It has undated, unsigned notes about the ride, although it does list names of the site creator and editors. It is still not "multiple
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:N||WP:ORG||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: The roller coaster project's judgment is not a guideline for inclusion that mandates inherent notability for every roller coaster in eveery park. Their judgment about the reliability of an apparently fan-created database of roller coasters is informative and helpful but by no means binding. If  is inappropriate, then judge it by , and it fails. Merging the stubs into an article about a given park makes lots of sense. Having a spew of nearly unsourced one or two sentence stubs makes no sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:N)

Comment: Sounds like you are getting into the invalid  argument when you note that there are articles for "kiddie" rides. Please show that this ride has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thus satisfying  or that it satisfies  or other guidelines. I question "common practice" being to keep such articles in previous AFDs, but maybe I just missed them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:N||WP:ORG)