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 merge to Indoor roller coaster. Some roller coasters are indeed "enclosed", but there is no reliable source suggesting a consistent distinction of encyclopedic note between those that are "indoor" and those that are "enclosed"; or distinguishing between the thematic type of enclosure. bd2412 T 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of enclosed roller coasters[edit]

List of enclosed roller coasters (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)

The phrase "enclosed roller coaster" is not an industry-defined term. It's simply one editor's idea that roller coasters that are enclosed needed to have its own list. There aren't any reliable sources tracking this, so there's no doubt this would be an incomplete list at any given time. I am also notifying WikiProject Amusement Parks. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Indoor roller coaster and remove the list aspect. The article kind of already exists at Indoor roller coaster and it seems to be a Run of the Mill ride list. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Indoor roller coaster" suffers the same issue. This isn't an industry-defined term, and the article will never contain enough information to justify its existence. 90% of the content now consists of an unsourced list. The brief 1-2 sentence description can be merged to roller coaster if it really needs to be retained. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTDIC --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Indoor roller coaster. I'm not sure there's a well-defined distinction between "indoor" and "enclosed" and have not found any references that attest to a difference. [1] uses the terms interchangeably. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – You will find "enclosed" or "indoor" in front of "roller coaster" in various publications. This is like coming across "fast race car" or "tall building" in running text. This doesn't mean the use of an adjective justifies a standalone article. Other than an definition (which is unnecessary by the way), there's nothing else to state. Merging to "indoor roller coaster" kicks the can down the road, as that article will/should be listed in an AfD as well. If a roller coaster that's enclosed is notable enough to have its own article, the description "enclosed", "indoor", etc., can be mentioned there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We also have Category:Enclosed roller coasters and Category:Indoor roller coasters as part of Category:Roller coasters by type. To my lay-eyes at least, those words seem to overlap each other such that merging might be appropriate in one direction or another, but are not vague comparatives like "fast" such that I don't get the nominator's concern. Indoor/outdoor seems a rather clear and binary distinction. But if there is an issue with these descriptions or classifications, this might be the sort of subject-specific distinction that would be best discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks or Talk:Roller coaster so that a comprehensive view of all of this content can be developed rather than just poking at one list. Subsequent AFDs and CFDs could then point to that talk page discussion for background. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main WikiProject is, for the most part, inactive. There are a handful of editors left, but unless manually pinged, they're not likely to respond. I left a notification there pointing to this AfD when I first opened it. I'm not sure I follow the logic here about how the categories are related. They would have their own inherent problems, because not every coaster in existence passes WP:N and has its own article, therefore the list of coasters within each category would be incomplete. Also any article that attempts to create a list of indoor roller coasters would likely be incomplete as well, as the list itself is not based on any reliable sources. Seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are related because they are just another format for presenting/organizing the same content. So if we're talking about a problem with the classification upon which this list is based, then certainly the categories would have the same issue. I don't understand your comment about a list being "incomplete"; completion is not relevant (nor possible) if all we're doing is listing articles we have that fit the inclusion criteria (just as a category does), and not making any statement that "this is a complete list of all the indoor roller coasters that exist." And if a roller coaster is notable, then certainly whether it is indoors or not would be documented in reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well we certainly don't need separate lists and categories for "indoor" vs. "enclosed", so at the very least, one should be merged into the other. Based on Google News searches, "indoor" seems to be the predominant category. My point above was that you have to draw a line at some point to avoid over-categorization, and tracking whether a roller coaster is indoor vs outdoor seems like a trivial detail in which to base a category or list upon. A personal website run by some enthusiast, sure. In an encyclopedia? Not so much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete; article has not a single source. --GRuban (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced for nine years. No evidence that this is a real term. Don't merge; since this is unsourced, it fails WP:V, so can't be merged. In fact, the proposed target fails WP:V as well, for the same reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Do not merge to an article that can be deleted for exactly the same reasons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - merge voters, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indoor roller coaster which was also nominated for deletion. I agree that two articles converting essentially the same concept is unnecessary, but should keep one or the other. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons that I gave at the AfD for indoor roller coaster: [2]. This satisfies GNG. NOT is wholly inapplicable. There may be scope for merger with indoor roller coaster, but deletion would be wholly inappropriate. James500 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge from Indoor roller coaster. Both cover much the same ground and both are lists, but the other does not inducate that it is only a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2018 (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.