Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing but not operating


 * 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 and redirect to List of defunct amusement parks. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Standing but not operating

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The phrase "standing but not operating" (abbreviated SBNO) is a status used solely by RCDB.com, which is a reliable source that is quoted often throughout roller coaster articles on Wikipedia. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3, SBNO is fan jargon that doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia. This was never really considered heavily before in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and now that it has, the project appears to support its deletion (as do I). Submitting an AfD here with plans to notify the WikiProject as well. Any ride with this status on RCDB.com can simply mark the ride as "closed" in either the ride's infobox or in prose within the body of the article. GoneIn60 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * keep, maybe Contrary to the above statement I was able to find numerous books which use the phrase; if it is a relatively recent coinage, it has clearly escaped into the wild. That said, once the list is eliminated, there's really nothing left but a definition, which one can pretty much work out on one's own anyway. The list is one of those exercises in ephemeral data which I would tend to have us forego, though I suspect that, as usual, people will argue for its retention. Perhaps this should be concerted to a list article if it is kept. Seyasirt (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seyasirt: Would you mind posting some of the books you came across? In addition, I'm not sure how useful any remaining article will be, whether or not it remains in its current form or if it's converted to a list. The data within becomes quickly WP:DATED, and since the project has discouraged its use, it likely won't have as many frequent updates now. We also shouldn't lose sight of the concern that content more suitable for a travel guide violates WP:NOTGUIDE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a basic GBooks search which shows a reasonable number of books using it as a term. I see that as sufficient to get past the "this is just one website's term" assertion. I share the rest of your concerns about the value of the article. Seyasirt (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at that same list, and the books that use it as an official status or term are the self-published google books by Nick Weisenberger. The others (of which there are very few solid examples) are just using the phrase in common, everyday language, since it can be easily used in a sentence. I'm not sure that exemplifies the use of a specific term in this context. No need to discuss further, but I wanted to hang this out as a disclaimer that appearing in a book may not be what it seems. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure one can tell the difference between the two; as I said above, the phrase is reasonably obvious. Seyasirt (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not always obvious, except for when the term is being defined, as is the case in both of Nick's books. In fact, he even goes as far as using the acronym SBNO, another obvious way to tell when the phrase is being used as an adjective and in the same way the article uses the phrase. This is less obvious and less clear in the reliably-published books from that list, in which it occurs naturally in a sentence without being defined or treated as an adjective phrase. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect if it's a useful term that's used on a lot of Wikipedia articles, a page should be kept. The arbitrary list of rides in this state at some time in the past should probably be deleted and I am starting a discussion on the talk page; the remaining stub could be merged onto a roller-coaster terminology page.  Or left here, if there is none. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 18:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.'''
 * Delete – The term was removed from project's infobox's per consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3 and per my earlier comments on that discussion when a ride is SBNO it's simply closed. A standalone article for a fan jargon term doesn't seem necessary and using terminology that's simple and easy to understand such as 'Closed' would work better.  Adog 104  Talk to me 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Move The page is essentially a dictionary definition plus a list. Since a definition alone falls afoul of WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we should move this page to List of amusement attractions that are standing but not operating. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Delete as jargon/cruft. If you can handle the difference between "closed" and "demolished", this term is completely unnecessary.  --Lockley (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of defunct amusement parks - The list is arbitrary, definitions alone do not warrant inclusion on an encyclopedia, but the term seems to have enough usage to warrant a redirect in case people look up the term. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of defunct amusement parks - per BRAINULATOR9. Also, this term could refer to mills, factories, power plants, nuclear reactors, etc. - no need for a narrowly defined set of dictionary words doubling as an urban definition on Wikipedia. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list, possibly with a rename. The suggestion to redirect to List of defunct amusement parks will lose information.  That page includes installations that have been demolished.  It could possibly also be merged if the target page was to list in a separate section installations that were still standing. SpinningSpark 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Spinningspark: The problem with keeping track of inoperable rides in lists is that items tend to get stuck. Months or years may go by after they're demolished before they're eventually delisted. The pinnacle of when a ride appears in reliable sources is during its introduction and not so much during its demise, especially if there was a long delay from the time it was closed to the time it was demolished. For roller coasters, luckily there's the RCDB, but outside of that, good luck finding anything reliable. Then there's the duplicate areas on Wikipedia containing similar incomplete lists, such as List of closed rides and attractions. The amusement attraction infoboxes designed by the WikiProject have already added auto-categorization based on the attraction's status. They appear in category lists already, as shown at Category:Amusement attractions by status. Those categories, by the way, expose how incomplete and outdated this article really is. Another list isn't what we need.Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, of course, and keeping track of such things would be more appropriate at the amusement park and/or amusement ride articles assuming it has the significant coverage to justify doing so. As for losing information, a quick check shows that practically all of the items listed have the same information repeated in their respective articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect as suggested, to List of defunct amusement parks. This is not suitable for a stand alone article--the topic is simply non-encyclopedic  DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.