Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities claimed to have been built on seven hills


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of cities claimed to have been built on seven hills
Unencyclopedic list of random cities with a claim of a certain number of hills in their vicinity. Appears to serve no encyclopedic purpose. Has been tagged for lack of references for over a month, no-one has yet replied to my query on the talk page as to the purpose of the article. I recently reverted an anon user's insertion of a line that said "this article is talking crap" which is a pov that I have some sympathy for. This page has though been in existence for over two years. However, Seven hills of Jerusalem (a probable inspiration of this article) was deleted on 16 June by Kungfuadam. MLA 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; WP:NOT, WP:V. Sandstein 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

→ for my further thoughts on this page, please see the article's talk page.
 * Delete per nom. Vizjim 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. "The seven hills of Asuncion" ... riiiight. GassyGuy 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the cogently argued and entirely valid nomination. Being b uilt (or rather, allegedly built) on seven hills has no demonstrable encyclopaedic significance, making this (a) listrcuft and (b) largely unverified.  Absent secondary sources describing why this concept is notable and attesting to the inclusions, fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, okay, delete per nom. Unverifiable listcruft. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's verifiable if you actually try verifying it. Superbo 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cruft. Unless having "seven hills" around my house means I too can be on wiki. Mystache 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee @ 05:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Rome wasn't built in a day... and cities that claim to be Rome's successor should have better claims than just seven hills. I also doubt parts of the list. 132.205.44.134 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't DELETE Please! I love this page, it's fascinating. Give me a couple of weeks to try to sort out some of the criticisms [originally unsigned, typos corrected by Superbo]
 * Strong Keep It's informative, and encyclopedic, and I don't see how it's crufty as it's all non-trivial information. There is a growing phenomenon of "listcruftcruft" here, of which votes for deletion here are a prime example.  You can't just nominate a list for deletion simply because it's a list and you don't happen to be interested in it.  Save the lists.  Every encyclopedia has lists.  As for this particular list, many cities make the Seven Hills claim, and it is noted in the title that this is only a claim and not a verified fact stated by each city.  To the author, if you need any help editing this to meet the criticism, I'll be happy to help, drop me a line. Superbo 15:13, 26 July 2006 (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.