Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landmarks in Las Vegas


 * 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. Note that there was serious concerns in the article, particualy WP:NOR in which the keep side didn't explain/fix. Secret account 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

List of landmarks in Las Vegas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A brand-new advertisement for Las Vegas tourism, added to Wikipedia yesterday. They have brochures for this already at your nearest travel agency. ~YellowFives 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm torn on this one. I see the point of the nominator, and also it appears to be a product of original research. On the other hand, it is a useful article that would be helpful if I ever decided to visit Las Vegas. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per WP:OR (what exactly is a "landmark"?)  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Created this page after seeing it on Wikipedia's list of wanted articles. With over 1700 pages linking to it, I thought it'd be a worthy gap to fill. I was surprised to see this immediately get moved to "Landmarks," as the list is clearly of "Attractions." As per the value, yes, I see it being a valuable resource to someone visiting Las Vegas. Having never been myself, I feel like I have a much better understanding of the area and seeing it all on one page would save time hunting around individual articles, provided they exist! Pintong (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My classmate wrote most of the copy, which he admits comes across as sales-pitchy at points. Maybe if this was cleaned up it would seem less like an advert? Pintong (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is Vegas afterall. It is difficult to write anything non touristy or non-trashy sounding for Vegas baby. Actually I moved it from "list of attractions" for the very reason of trying to avoid it looks like a brochure advert. Weak keep - the article is not really essential given that we already have templates with the main attractions and categories but it is clearly in demand. If it could develop into a more comprehensive article and to try to address the brochure vibe we get from it its OK I think. We have lists of notable buildings and that for a number of cities. Don't like the open 24 column though (most say NO!!). At face value though it seems better suited to WikiTravel than wikipedia...  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:There are similar pages for Seattle, Louisville and other places. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There may be 1700 pages linking here, but most are talk pages and appear because the page is part of WikiProject Las Vegas's template. However, if the objection to the article lay in the neutrality of the POV, I would say Weak keep and tag. Vulture19 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTRAVEL. I agree with Blofeld that this belongs better at WikiTravel. Wikipedia is not a tour guide. I might be OK with keeping it if it only included items that have articles on WP already. Angryapathy (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and WP:CLEANUP - without a violation of WP:WAX, some similar articles (List of Chicago Landmarks is at FL level) appear to function very well. The article just needs some TLC. Dale 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. Dale's comment above is comparing apples and oranges.  The List of Chicago Landmarks is a list of structures which have been officially designated as "landmarks" by the City of Chicago's Commission on Chicago Landmarks.  The Las Vegas list is a completely subjective list of structures that the creator has deemed to be "landmarks."  Much of the content also reads like an advertisement for specific restaurants and other business establishments.  In its current form, the article is purely subjective original research, and I have to vote "delete."   However, if there were a reliable, verifiable source for what is being included as a landmark (rather than the editor's subjective opinion), I might be persuaded to "keep." Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Aside from the blatant subjectivity and original research problems, most of the attractions listed here are not "landmarks" in any sense of the word. A landmark is "a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest; especially one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation."   This list includes things like shows (e.g., the "Show in the Sky" - a "free show with ladies dancing on floats") and miscellaneous things to do (e.g., the Wyrick Magic Academy).  These are not "landmarks"; they are simply "things to do."  Also, how can we justify including one restaurant (The Tuscany Kitchen) as a landmark but not the dozens of other fine restaurants in Vegas.  Frankly, this is a real mess of promotion and subjective opinion.  This is more like a guide to attractions that may be fine for WikiTravel, but it is NOT encyclopedic in its present form. Cbl62 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there is already a list of true Las Vegas historic landmarks (as opposed to "attractions") at National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada. Cbl62 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cbl62's comment above. There is no criteria for inclusion into the "landmark" club.  This is simply an advertisement.    talk 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't see what guideline or policy this violates. It seems to pass WP:LIST.  Virtually all of the "landmarks" are notable by themselves, so a list of such would also be notable.  Cut out the cruft (NN sites) and fix the citations.  Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see how NOTRAVEL may apply. In any case, I've removed the NN stuff. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment i dont think either "attractions" or "landmarks" is appropriate. a better choice may be "list of las vegas tourist oriented businesses" or "list of commercial attractions in las vegas". i think its actually an obvious list to have on WP, though of course it requires vigilance to not include marginal/nonnotable attractions. a lead which notes the obvious commercial nature of nearly every destination in the town would help. we cant exactly NOT list these attractions just because they are such blatantly self promoting entities. they are notable, after all. (and i HATE vegas). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't go overboard, Mercurywoodrose. If we were to use your titles, not only would it be near impossible to find, it would also break a basic naming rule. Keep it short and simple. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * good point. I would support any agreed upon simpler title if the lead specified the lists limits.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am leaning towards keep because the Vegas list could be developed like Chicago and actually contain encyclopedia landmarks rather than just touristy attractions. Either way, the way it is currently done will have to change if this is to be kept. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rework. Since most of these already have valid articles themselves, there's no particular reason not to organize them in a list. If the 24 hour, column is removed and the last one rewritten, the promotional tone will also be gone. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cbl62's comment above. If it could be edited to the standards of the CHicago article, I'd change it to a keep, but as is, it's just an ad.Sabiona (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2009 (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.