Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landmarks


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

List of landmarks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

"Landmark" is a vague term, leading to a potentially infinitely long list. This article is really just a collection of random places. It is a mess, and I don't think it could be improved unless a rigorous definition of "landmark" is given, and I doubt if this can be done properly. I don't see how something of such a wide, yet vague, scope benefits Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It shouldn't be on wikipedia, makes little to no sense. JMK (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly un-maintable - or would amount to multi-Mbyte page without heavy subjective editing. Category:Landmarks and subcats, and more specific regional lists should be replacements. Just too big in scope.Oranjblud (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect Duplicate of Lists of tourist attractions which is subcategorised. (I don't know if anyone can really be bothered merging it to all the sublists of tourist attractions, so I'd also support a redirect without merge.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many landmarks are not tourist attractions and many tourist attractions are not landmarks. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article (which I trust you have read) says "In American English it (landmark) is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance". I agree that many tourist attractions are not landmarks, but landmarks in this sense are tourist attractions. This is plainly a list of landmarks in the sense of things appealing to tourists, not in the sense of things used to navigate. The first entry is the Ross Ice Shelf - is it used to navigate? No. Is it visited by cruise ships? Yes.  The list of man-made landmarks is even more obviously a list of tourist atractions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * into landmark in 2009. Our copyright licenses require that the prior edit history not be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, what do you mean. Wikipedia doesn't have a "copyright licence" because it uses Creative Commons. And where does this requirement to retain all prior edit history come from? In any case, no history is ever properly deleted - I think it will still be accessible to admins. Bazonka (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Creative Commons (or, more particularly, CC-BY-SA) is a copyright licence, and it requires that authors be identified publicly, not only to English Wikipedia admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand where you're coming from now, although I feel that that particular requirement of the licence is unenforceable and so does not warrant this level of concern. Anyway, a redirect rather than a full deletion should be adequate, and would retain the page history (not that anyone is likely to ever look at it). Bazonka (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion about this issue at WT:DEL Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a larger issue on this point on attribution, but specifically here, the solution is simple: maintain this as a redirect to landmark. "List of landmarks" is by all means a searchable term, so maintaining it as a redirect retains the edit history. --M ASEM (t) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The license does not require the original edit history to be preserved, it only requires a list of contributors to be given. This is why, for example, we do not need to include the edit history in a generated PDF. I have added the list of contributors to the talk page of Landmark, which seems to be the usual place for it. That resolves any copyright issue with the copied text. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and then split to new articles by continent – This would solve the matter of the article's lengthiness per WP:SIZE, and would WP:PRESERVE the verifiable information in the encyclopedia. I've added some information in the article's lead about landmarks to clarify inclusion criteria for the list. The article was created in June 2004 and actually appears to be well-maintained. Also, the information is verifiable and the article currently has 238 inline citations from reliable sources such as the Unesco World Heritage Centre. Blanket deletion of this article and all of the work that has gone into it would be quite drastic, and would be a detriment to the encyclopedia, rather than an improvement. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and turn into a disambiguation of some kind... - then split by country or continent or something like that.. I'm not fussy. This article is a total mess though.. that should be attended to as well. Have we even decided what a landmark is yet?--Coin945 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any policy based reason for keeping? Secret account 02:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, if we can define "landmark", then the article should be able to kept - cos there will only be a finite amount of entries in this and any split-off article. Staying the vague term it is (as it is used in the article atm), then I'd vote delete. It depends on how competent we are at finding a concrete definition for this term. But I have faith, so that's why I voted keep.--Coin945 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as this is too broad to be a useful list. It is not a list of landmarks in a specific place or a specific type of landmark. If all the landmarks in the world are listed, it would not meet the purposes of a list by providing information or aiding navigation, but would be so long and disorganized that no one would bother to look. Dew Kane (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A global or continental list of landmarks would have near-infinite length. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete do not split or disambiguation. Landmark is such a vague term it violates our policies in original research, and neutral point of view. Secret account 02:32, 18 July 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.