Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This entire list article is essentially nothing more than trivia and will never be able to be properly sourced. I made the list article to declutter the Madame Tussauds page (where the list previously was). However, wax models are continuously added to the page without sourcing and most of them cannot be reliably sourced ever. Alduin2000 (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Alduin2000 (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The selection of particular figures for exhibition, and their originally innovative presentation in guidebooks, has been extensively discussed as a significant element of Madame Tussads' business strategy and cultural impact, for example, and . The subject thus clearly passes WP:LISTN. There is no reason to have any figure on the page without a RS confirming its presence; if protection is necessary to achieve that it should be applied but that is no reason not to have the list. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - deleting a perfectly good list because unsourced material keeps getting added is throwing the WP:BABY out with the bathwater. We can keep this and remove unsourced additions, or protect if needs be. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that almost all of the entries are unsourced and unsourceable because it seems rare for reliable sources to report on individual models in the museums. Not only is it that unsourced entries are continuously added but the majority of the list was unsourced to begin with. Due to this, the list is completely unverifiable and will continue to be unverifiable as no sources actually comment on the existence of almost every single figure in the list. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally see your point, but I am not sure I agree. I regularly see little articles about new (or updated) wax figures. Just as a quick example, check out |this search result. A lot of those results are poor quality sources, lots of gossip mags and tabloids, but there are some decent sources in amongst there and I think as a very quick exercise it demonstrates that there is potential to find sources for this type of list. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Sure the page needs a lot of work and needs to be sourced but it should definitely stay MaskedSinger (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep not a big fan of lists but this is one of the few that I think is of real use and meets WP:NLIST but the sourcing is a real problem. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2019 (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.