Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legoland Miniland Washington DC


 * 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. None of the keep !voters gave a policy compliant reason for keeping the article that meets the WP:NOT and WP:N concerns raised by other editors. If someone does want to transwiki, I will provide a copy in your user space or by email. If someone has a good redirect target, feel free to recreate the page as a redirect; there wasn't a clear enough consensus her to indicate what the target should be, but I trust future editors can work that out Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Legoland Miniland Washington DC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see any reason for having this article. It is nothing more but a gallery--really, a list, with pictures of Lego and of the original building, plus wikilinks and weblinks. This is not a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
 * Drmies (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * [Keep.] I disagree that this article should be deleted. The content is unique on the internet and it is an educational resource. This doesn't seem unlike other lists on other areas of wikipedia, whether a list of historic landmarks in New York or list of attractions at Disneyworld. Importantly, Legoland does NOT list or display the names of more than few of the several hundred buildings presented. Therefore, to nearly every visitor, this is the only collection anywhere cataloging these important structures. As an educator, standing there without any reference provided by the park, see this as a resource and an invaluable tool for teachers and students. I would like to see additional lists of other sites around the world. This is clearly an educational article and had it been available for our field trip last year would have used it. jsasson (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is, what is of use for educators and what is encyclopedic are two different things. I assume that the Legoland visitor guide would have this information as well, and I suppose there is a sign with every attraction explaining what it is. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would WikiVoyage be a suitable destination if Wikipedia is not appropriate? Chris857 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Move it to Wikivoyage per Chris if they want it, or redirect it to Legoland if they don't want it.  Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Nyttend.&#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP and REQUEST CLOSURE per clear consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What clear consensus? Nyttend says either transwiki or redirect; jsasson says keep without offering any policy-based arguments; Chris857 and Drmies discuss transwikiing but don't actually give a vote; you say keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not a single vote to delete. Votes are "Keep", "Keep", "Don't delete", and "Keep", which is the same as Keep. The closing admin can decide if he or she wishes to add anything to that. Clearly the consensus is to Keep the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is not about !vote counting. It is about the weight of the arguments based on policies and guidelines.  I will point out that that nobody has actually addressed the reasons for nomination which is that articles are not picture galleries and must meet notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My "don't delete" vote addresses the reasons for nomination — if we accept either of my suggestions, we won't have an article on this topic. Keeping to transwiki results in an A5 speedy deletion once the transwiki is performed, and redirecting means that we don't have an article.  We shouldn't delete pages unless their contents are bigtime problematic (e.g. copyvios) or unless they're not likely to be good redirects; when the contents are innocuous enough to stay around in page histories, like here, we shouldn't delete them when the titles themselves can be used productively.  Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I amend my statement to be almost nobody has addressed the reasons for nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The articles, as currently constituted are picture galleries in violation of WP:NOTGALLERY. What remains is whether the topic itself is notable.  I was able to find this about Las Vegas and this about Washington.  In reviewing the sources, I can see that there may be a justification for creating a Legoland Miniland USA article as this feature is prominent in the American Legoland parks.  However, the material in these articles are not suitable for merging, and as such, I will go with an opinion of deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:N, cites no reliable sources covering this subject in any detail.  Sandstein   08:55, 1 December 2012 (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.