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 delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bat (Canada's Wonderland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This roller coaster is a mass-produced roller coaster. There are several roller coasters that have the exact same layout/characteristics of this roller coaster. A search on Google and Yahoo returned no reliable sources regarding the roller coaster that could be included to support the notability of the topic. Dom497 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc, McDoobAU93, Astros4477, and JlACEer: Just thought you guys might want to pitch in your thoughts.--Dom497 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator, this would be like having an article on each individual Ford Taurus that's ever been made. Unless something appears showing how The Bat itself is notable, this should just be included in a List of Vekoma Boomerang roller coasters somewhere. --McDoobAU93 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Non-notable topic per above comments. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Strong believer in mass-produced roller coasters not having their own article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, didn't find significant RS coverage to meet WP:GNG. Found books with one-sentence descriptions in reliable sources, a personal account, and short info on tech specs, and a newspaper article from The Star on the coaster stalling with people suspended upside down, but overall just not enough. I'm fine with an example of a "mass" produced item having its own article, but it still needs RS coverage. Agyle (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2014 (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.