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. The general consensus was to keep this article as meeting the WP:GNG. References have been improved in this AfD process. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor roller coaster (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)

Tagged as unsourced for six years. My own searching fails to find any useful mentions of the term; lots of search hits, but they're all just mentions of a roller coaster that happens to be indoors, with no evidence the term is used in a meaningful way. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters, much of the discussion there suggests a merge to this article. if this article isn't here that's a little silly. should at least wait for that AfD to close. It also seems that there's plenty of scholar results for indoor roller coasters, so the topic seems notable to me. - Scarpy (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of another deletion discussion is allegedly "a little silly", that should not prevent us from making a better decision here.

@Scarpy: Could you point out specific scholar results (maybe at least 2?) that do not just mention "indoor" as an adjective, but that actually focus in-depth on this specific type of rollercoaster? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why I would need too. We're not talking about the notability of a person or institution or even a neologism, but rather a variety of roller coaster that's enclosed in a building (several of which have articles and are linked). If the indoor roller coasters themselves are notable, then the list of notable of indoor roller coasters is also notable. I almost voted speedy keep for that reason. - Scarpy (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy: Please compare "red carpet" to "black carpet". Red carpets are a notable term, black carpets are not. Both are "varieties of carpets", and "carpet" has an own article. Nevertheless, "black carpet" does not inherit the notability of "carpet"; neither does "red carpet". There is something else that makes "red carpet" a notable term. I would like to learn why "indoor roller coaster" is such a term. Until then, Delete for a lack of significant coverage of the specific article topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:GNG (emphasis changed, links removed). The frequent appearance of a term together with a specific adjective might be an interesting fact for the term's article, but does not automatically justify having a separate article called "adjective term". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any articles on notable black carpets? There are on notable indoor rollercoasters. Please mind WP:BLUDGEON. - Scarpy (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, a roller coaster that is notable enough to have its own article focuses on the ride characteristics themselves (height, speed, inversions, records, etc.). The fact that it is indoor is an afterthought and somewhat trivial detail. Briefly mentioning this type of roller coaster in the main roller coaster article with a redirect from indoor roller coaster to an anchor on that page would be sufficient, as there's not enough information on this topic to warrant its own standalone article. If that ever changes, then we can consider creating the article. We shouldn't be approaching this the other way around. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced dicdef followed by an unreferenced, directory-like list. Topic appears to fail WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. This is obviously notable. There might be scope for merger with "enclosed roller coaster" as they are similar (eg Indoor and enclosed roller coasters). There is no scope for deletion. The comparison with colour differences in carpets is not a valid analogy since roller coasters are not classified by colour, but they are classified by being inside or outside (eg "largest indoor roller coaster" [1] [2] [3], which you won't find for red roller coasters [4]; likewise with "fastest indoor roller coaster" [5] [6] and only one in Ontario [7]), and "black carpet" a particularly poor example because it is a notable type of beetle (see Black carpet beetle). So black carpets are notable. And the sources available indicate that NOT is inapplicable, because, for example, largest and fastest are not a definition at all. And NOTDIR is about directory services which are a computing thing that has nothing to do with this. James500 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to roller coaster. The defining characteristics of a roller coaster (height, speed, elements, etc.) have nothing to do with being indoor vs. outdoor. This is a trivial detail, and if a brief 2-3 sentence description is truly needed, it can exist in the main roller coaster article. We can redirect "indoor roller coaster" to an anchor/subsection on that page. It's absurd to create a standalone article on a topic that there isn't much to say about. #ForeverStubStatus --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sourcing to cover notability issues is clearly satisfied by previous editors. While I can see why DICDEF was mooted, I think only the first line is strictly so, and the rest of the paragraph + lengthy list of examples is sufficient. There's also masses more content if even 10 minutes was spent expanding. Finally is the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. Roller coaster is a big topic and this is such a different variation that I think it can meet the CONTENTFORK justifications quite well. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters as a merge to this article, and have executed the merge. I have also added a handful of sources to this article. bd2412 T 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Thank you very much; please see this edit which might have removed a misquote. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a different quote; Space Mountain is too well-referenced as being at least one of the first indoor roller coasters to avoid mentioning it in the lede. bd2412 T 18:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:GNG / WP:LISTN per review of sources in the article and this AfD. Now that there's only one page, it's easier to justify keeping this one to contain all available information on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:28, 9 September 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.