Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There are only 5 wikilinks on this list, and historically, this article has been used for little other than wedding chapel spam (websites and phone numbers). There is no additional value to this article existing that isn't already provided by Category:Wedding chapels in the Las Vegas Valley. I believe this criteria is a little too specific for a standalone list at this time, if there are only 5 notable wedding chapels in the Las Vegas area. Phuzion (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Misleading. There hasn't been any spam added for years.  If it was a problem, IP addresses and new accounts could be stopped from editing.  Not a valid reason to delete something, regardless.   D r e a m Focus  14:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There are seven entries now, with information in tables about it. Lists are far more useful than categories.  No reason not to have both.   D r e a m Focus  13:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Lorstaking (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lorstaking Friendly reminder: WP:AFDNOTAVOTE - can you add a rationale to your vote? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced list that in the current form fails WP:LISTN. How is this more valid than the list of restaurants or junkyars in Lss Vegas? WP:INDISCRIMINATE fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because everything on the list has its own article. Thus it aids in navigation, and offers far more information than a category thus is more useful.  We do have Category:Lists of restaurants by city which includes List of restaurants in the Las Vegas Valley.   D r e a m Focus  12:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only the first 6 or so have articles, the rest of them don't. That's the issue here. It's basically a Yellow Pages directory, with a few having articles. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. See wp:CLNT on how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary. Roughly: if there's a category there can be a list, which can include redlink items supported by references, photos, former examples, lesser examples not needing articles, more. This is a famous-type topic, too. I'd be interested in seeing photo gallery of many weddings in progress of famous or drunk people. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:It seemed odd the list was so short. In fact 10 wedding chapels were deleted just before the AFD was opened, with edit summaries perhaps suggesting they were unsourced. Most were in fact external links, i.e. sourced. I restored all. I haven't verified them, but i expect they are all bona fide wedding chapels in Las Vegas (well as bona fide as fake-type churches in Las Vegas can be.) The list should not be limited to only those having separate articles. The notability of the topic is partly the fact that there are so many of them, as well as fact that many are probably cheesy and fake and not-likely-to-be-well documented!
 * FYI i hate it when an editor strips down an article and then nominates it for deletion. If u think content is crummy please leave it in and state ur opinion, let others judge. Here, it was not exactly that: one editor stripped it down, then another nominated it. With partial justification that it seemed too short! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed them because of WP:LISTCOMPANY/WP:LISTORG. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I restored them because IMHO it is absurd to delete them. The article is about  wedding chapels in Las Vegas, it says it is a list of them, so it should list them.  There may well be more than 17 or however many are in the article now, but I doubt there are more than 50 currently and in the past, say, a finite number, and they can certainly all be listed.


 * The removal edit summary stated "Every city has wedding chapels, we can't list them all. If they don't have a Wikipedia article then they shouldn't be listed. The rules are clear enough". I was starting to say that is ridiculous, but I suppose it is not ridiculous if you are completely unfamiliar with the topic of wedding chapels in Las Vegas. Probably half the world or more is not.  But I am in the half that is aware of them, and I am aware of movies with Elvis impersonators parachuting out of airplanes in Las Vegas and lots more.  Please see the article wedding chapel for a brief intro to the topic of Las Vegas ones.  Further, I can't think of any standalone wedding chapels anywhere else in the world, at all.  If you are aware of the phenomenon and how unique/rare it is, then the edit summary islam ridiculous.  This is the only list of wedding chapels in Wikipedia and it will probably remain so;  there is no danger of others growing rampantly.  About "the rules are clear enough", I suppose that refers to the rules for list-item notability for this page, which, as for other list-articles per policies/guidelines, is to be determined by editors at its Talk page.  I think it is worthwhile to have some discussion here during this AFD, to establish a rough consensus and avoid having a 3rd AFD, but after the AFD is closed (keep of course) discussion on fine points should continue there (and please ping me).


 * About wp:LISTCOMPANY I guess I read that completely opposite to how User:Philipnelson99 does. That states (in entirety):"A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group."


 * In my view that is a clear statement that the other wedding chapels can be included. Its last assertion, that independent sourcing should be provided to establish membership, must mean that in many/most cases it would be nice to have citations, but it cannot be read IMHO to dictate that an item (no matter how well-known its membership is) absolutely must have a citation or police-persons are empowered to punish miscreant editors etc... IMHO in practice it means that the items can be tagged "citation needed" if you actually seriously disbelieve they are wedding chapels in Las Vegas.  I may be farther out here than other editors, but I believe you should jolly well perform wp:BEFORE before you add "citation needed" tags in this case.  And if you can assert you performed a decent search and failed to find support for their existence, only then can you remove them from the list-article, and if you do you must place them onto the talk page for further review by others.  Otherwise, your participation is just not constructive, in my personal opinion.  Anyhow, the guideline is clear that these can be included one way or another, tagged or not.  About wp:LISTORG, oh I see that is an alternate shortcut to the same statement.
 * To go further: IMHO the list is bogus if it does not include substantially all the members of the group.  By the title of the page, Wikipedia editorship is saying here we are presenting the list of these, not "here we are presenting a list of, strangely, some but not others in this finite set".  To delete some is to push the list towards being obviously bogus in others' view, leading toward an AFD 3 and an AFD 4 etc.  Just stop. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doncram: You do realize that you restored pages that link to commercial sites into the article, right? I'm pretty sure that's not how WP:ELPOINTS works. I think there could be an argument for including a link to an external directory of wedding chapels in an External Links section on the page but I don't think directly linking to a chapel's page where they sell things is a good idea.
 * I have no opinion on deleting the article entirely, I think it could be merged but I don't plan to vote precisely because some might see it as bad faith on my part. They do not meet the independent requirement of WP:LISTCOMPANY, so I removed them. That was just my interpretation of the guideline and you clearly don't read it the same as I do. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, per wp:ELPOINTS "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[2] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable."  wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP however, so that is not relevant for this AFD.  Nonetheless I may convert some of them to inline citations.
 * It seems to me that in this case in Wikipedia, a link to a commercial website is sufficient. It reliably establishes wedding-chapel-ness and Las Vegas location.  While there's possibility a chapel could go out of business so the info would not be current (though this list can/should include former examples IMO), I see no likelihood the info is completely false.  Why would a business lie about whether it offers a service, or where its location is?  Who would benefit from a completely false claim?  So for this article I believe these are fine.
 * For what it's worth I added a TripAdvisor source (similarly reliable) and more chapels. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is ready to be closed (keep) tomorrow, day 7 from AFD opening. It wasn't required fOr AFD decision purposes IMHO, but the list-article has been developed and now no longer includes any external links. And discussion was started and continues at its Talk page on which items are to be included or not going forward. And i believe discussion there addresses some editor(s) gestalt-type reservations about this list-article. It would be helpful if the closer here could clarify for the record that a list of commercial places is certainly allowed to include commercial places in its list, in response to mentions of wp:LISTCOMPANY which is exactly on topic of when businesses can be included in a list. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment whilst one could clearly have lists like this for anything, it seems to me that there are grounds for saying wedding chapels in Vegas are more notable than, for example, dog groomers in La Rochelle. Because the chapels in Vegas are a noted, unusual phenomena. Isn't that what we should be assessing? JMWt (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This essay, albeit on a commercial website, is a pretty good expression of it all. There is more to develop in this list-article and the wedding chapel "parent" article about the phenomenon. I never myself understood what is the connection to Elvis, but just now reading this also-commercial site covering a number of movies, that there was in fact an Elvis-goes-to-Las-Vegas-and-i-think-gets-a-quickie-wedding movie. It is a big cultural thing.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete  A list here is only useful if it points to articles in wiki; we aren't a phone book. When most of the chapels listed don't have wiki articles, I'm not seeing notability or the need for having a list. This would help navigation, if we had 20 wiki articles for each chapel; the first 5 or 6 have articles, then it's just a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One is demolished, one is on the NRHP, rest are iffy notability-wise. Famous person got married here, rest are just functioning businesses. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the list, which can/should also cover any fictional wedding chapels in the numerous movies, is a great contribution. Currently the list includes mention of just one celebrity wedding, but if that makes such an impression we could surely serve up hundreds more. And personally i'd like to see links to the numerous movies. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that fictional chapels be included on this list. There's no indication that the list covers fictional wedding chapels in Las Vegas at all. Also, please keep non-deletion related discussion on the list's talk page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moot. There are no fictional wedding chapels in the list. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Oaktree's point that most of the existing entries are just businesses and don't meet existing notability guidelines. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just want to note that earlier in this deletion discussion, I said I would not vote but the improvements to the list still have not changed my mind about if the list is worth keeping. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my position to Merge to Weddings in Las Vegas with the caveat that entries must be reliably and independently sourced or otherwise meet the notability criteria for companies or places. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep but limit to notable entries. I do believe WP:NLIST is not met, but lists that have a navigation purpose are still kept per policy (regardless if you think the entries aren't notable, the pages still exist; make another discussion). Has enough extra information in the tables to differentiate it from a category listing. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I happen to think that this link from the article to OSM map showing 15 locations currently is a good addition to the list-article. It simply shows there are a lot of them, most in one Las Vegas strip area.  The list-article could be improved in lots of ways, including perhaps minimizing the "lesser" ones (but who judges which are lesser) while keeping them in to keep the map working.  All the summaries could be improved.  Whether the list should try to be comprehensive, i.e. per common selection criteria wp:CSC be a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", or whether it should be limited to only the subset that (randomly?) have separate articles is an issue for discussion at Talk page of the list-article.  Discussion was opened there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of small, generic, not-individually-notable entities. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * wp:NOTDIRECTORY is about the fact that Wikipedia need not post telephone numbers, opening hours etc., which has not been done. The phenomenon of "wedding chapels in Las Vegas" is a thing, a significant phenomenon in modern America (well, from the 1970s or so for a while, I don't know if it is continuing at the same level or not.  Yes, the list-article should not unduly provide commercial advertising.  However, the phenomenon is a cheesy commercial thing, and I personally think it is fine in this case to convey that.  You and/or others might not grasp the minor sarcasm I put into some of my blurbs on wedding chapels;  indeed that can be addressed by discussion at the talk page and editing.  But the topic is the strange plethora of wedding chapels, and, barring some new consensus on where to draw the line which might emerge at the Talk page, it seems to me that avoiding selectivity and showing the numerosity of them is appropriate.
 * There is a fundamental misunderstanding afoot, too, an incorrect belief that every list-article must list only "individually-notable" topics having separate standalone articles. That is simple false.  There's good reason not to promote creation of separate articles, and having a list-article enables Wikipedia to pare down separate articles and rather convey more information by presenting multiple items together on one page.  The collection as a whole is the thing.  --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A topic being notable does mot make a list of examples of the topic notable. The rest of your above comment was gish galloping I’m not going to try and argue with. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Dronebogus, but I don't see what essay, guide, or policy supports anything you say. You posted that wp:DIRECTORY was a reason.  I go to that page (wp:NOT as a whole) and do not see see how wp:DIRECTORY applies, and say so.  There is wp:NOTGUIDE subsection just after it, and I suspect that you might be referring to that, which is about not not reporting ephemeral stuff like prices and opening times.
 * You make new argument that "a topic being notable does not make a list of examples of the topic notable"... Okay well there are 5 or 6 examples that are apparently Wikipedia -separate-article-level notable, which can certainly be listed, right? In the wedding chapel's section on Las Vegas or split out into a separate article.  And it is a matter of editors' discussing at the Talk page to decide about a lower level of notability for list-items not having separate articles, applying principles at  Stand-alone lists.  Discussion was opened at Talk there; you have not commented.  So much for your new argument.
 * Then you dismiss me for writing too much in your opinion, I guess, and you also post at my Talk page to chastise me, accusing me of wp:BLUDGEONing. I am aware that writing a lot in an AFD often does not work out well, and I generally don't, but here it seemed appropriate somehow to respond to arguments like yours that amount to wp:IDONTLIKEIT and provide no valid reasoning at all.  Your effectively "IDONTLIKEIT" view seems like bludgeoning, using a blunt tool of your repetition to try to get your way.  There is NO WAY in my view that it is valid to simply delete everything here, by any Wikipedia policy-based reasoning.  There is room for editorial discussion about the list-article, yes. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They added their opinion to the AfD discussion, that's not bludgeoning. AfD is about consensus and you're effectively trying to overwhelm the conversation with walls of text that mean very little which is, by definition, bludgeoning. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * delete Looks like a directory to me. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sufficient entries with articles, and it's a notable topic for a list . It could be limited to entries that link to an article, or merged to wedding chapel, but that's a content dispute and not a reason for deletion. Peter James (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful list which people will search for.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The few chapels with reliable, independent sources have their own articles. The remainder here link either to the web sites of the chapels or to non-RS sites like Trip Advisor and are clearly adverts for those businesses. If the non-RS, non-independent sources are removed, along with the content in the article they support, you are left with a list of 7 items. This is clearly an advertisement and inappropriate for WP. Lamona (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By "clearly adverts", do you mean the editor who added their mentions is working for them, or for pay somehow? I added them.
 * The sources are entirely reliable for establishing names of wedding chapels and their locations, information which has mostly been corroborated by Google Streetview in the process of obtaining coordinates.
 * So, wp:IDONTLIKEIT ?
 * Editing could be done to make the list of businesses seem less commercial somehow ...discuss at Talk... although it is a list of cheesy businesses.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * TripAdvisor is not a reliable source. It is basically an advertising site. So that cannot be used as a source of information. Entries here that only are sourced to the chapel's own web site cannot remain as those are not independent sources. I see above that some of these were correctly deleted, but unfortunately added back. They should be deleted. I would do so but we're very close to an edit war on this page. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, good, please do not remove items. It is better for everyone in this AFD to be able to see and evaluate the whole list.  I suggest that further education about these matters can continue after this AFD, but it also can be started now at the Talk page.  You and me and most editors do not have experience in evaluating sources for the special circumstance of a list-article whose topic is a list of cheesy businesses which are famous as a group world-wide, but mostly not individually famous.  Quick notes, though: wp:RS starts off with " Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process" and see its section wp:RSCONTEXT (aka wp:CONTEXTMATTERS).
 * We are not as far apart as you might think. I grant further that I happen to agree that TripAdvisor is not reliable for many/most things, like who is the actual owner of a business or when it actually started or even whether it is open at this hour.  TripAdvisor and individual business' websites and yellowpages and billboards and ads run in newspapers or magazines do seem to be proof that a business has operated, however.  It can be repeatedly verified, rather easily actually, by anyone that a given business service is operating or once operated.  Again, discussion about which of various yellow pages type sources should be used to establish that businesses have existed (i.e., whether they have paid money to run ads), is separate issue from this AFD discussion.  Thanks. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the TripAdvisor page - most of which is taken up with controversies and errors. I wouldn't count on it for anything. It's like IMDB in that way: it seems to have all the facts but it can't be considered reliable at any one moment in time. I also see no reason for WP to have addresses and other such information for a business. At best there is a link to the business's web page if it has one. See Microsoft, Alioto's. What makes this page look like a directory is that it has the elements of a directory rather than an encyclopedia. I see no reason to have a list of non-encyclopedic businesses. Presumably the ones with WP articles are notable and have suitable sourcing. But the others are not and should not be in WP until the sources exist. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this is precisely why this page doesn't fit wikipedia. At best there are no more than 7 chapels in las Vegas with notability and this list doesn't make sense with that few entries. It's literally an advertisement at this point. Philipnelson99 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable topic per the above, editorial discussions can determine how much actual content information we want to include without being an ad venue. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list topic is notable, as is shown by a search in Google Books. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the wedding industry in Vegas is notable, but that doesn't mean we need a list of each chapel. The actually notable ones can and are discussed in the relevant articles. Tripadvisor, wedding planning packages as sources/ELs does not make them notable. Literally every business has one. Disclosure, I just removed a lot of this from the article as it was not helping notability. Star   Mississippi  14:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * More disclosure from me: I removed the Trip Advisor references - I just couldn't stand seeing them there. There only remains one possibly reliable reference (#1), the rest are links to the chapel's own web pages. And to Jclemens, if there are non-advert sources, please link to them. That's what we need. It would be easy to remove content from the article, the hard part is adding suitable, independent, reliable content. Lamona (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But of course the TripAdvisor "10 best" source was in fact the source for existence and names and addresses of a number of wedding chapels, so it is nonsensical and against numerous Wikipedia policies about sourcing to remove that. It is as if heads are popping with the idea that a commercial site can be a valid source ever, even for establishing that a commercial site exists (i.e. ads are being run for a wedding chapel is evidence about existence of a wedding chapel).  Amazing but true. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An advertisement / commercial site is never a reliable source for establishing notability. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that it was. Neither i nor anyone else is trying to create separate articles for them, which would require Wikipedia notability standards for separate articles to be met. Let's agree to disagree otherwise about whether yellow pages etc are valid sources for different purposes, or whether wp:contextmatters is part of Wikipedia policy or not, okay? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge but not to Wedding chapel. I think a better target might be Las Vegas weddings, which already has a section for wedding chapels. I also recommend limiting it then to chapels that have WP articles, to avoid the list becoming a spammers' Paradise. Joyous! | Talk 17:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting that there is such an article, and thank you for finding it User:Joyous!.
 * For purpose of this AFD, let me suggest we all just consider it obvious that "Las Vegas weddings" can be merged into "List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas", or vice versa. That is merely an editing matter, not for AFD.  I understand this AFD to be about the question whether a list of wedding chapels can exist in Wikipedia in any form, or not (I have stated my position, which is yes, of course.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as it is a notable albeit incomplete list.
 * LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable list and there is significant coverage of the entries as a group, so it passes WP:NLIST. I would not be opposed to merging some content with Las Vegas weddings, but that can be done via a discussion on the article talk pages and not through AFD.  Frank   Anchor  04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While I understand there is notable coverage of Las Vegas wedding chapels as a group, I'm not sure that it warrants an entire list. There are a handful of chapels at best that are covered in multiple sources as a group. A list like this needs more than a handful to warrant the list's inclusion in wikipedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per NLIST, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Therefore it is acceptable to include this as a list even though there are several entries on it which are not notable for the purposes of having their own article.  Frank   Anchor  15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure a standalone list serves more purpose than a category. This list is a WP:DIRECTORY and would only attract spam listings. I think keeping it rather than merging is too strong a position. Merging can be an outcome of an AfD per WP:AfD. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this list is a directory per User:Doncram's analysis above. There has been a minor problem with spam being added in the past few years, but the answer to the influx of spam is not deletion when there is notable content (per NLIST).  The answer is possible page protection, which is not in the scope of an AFD discussion.  Frank   Anchor  16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge notable examples into Las Vegas weddings. The current list is clearly a spam magnet or otherwise built with disregard for WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. It's sourced mostly to official websites, even quoting from them. I started just removing all the businesses without articles, but it only left a few which can simply be merged into the main LV weddings article. There's just no need to spin out the subtopic. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth the quoting from commercial websites did not exist prior to this AfD but the spam magnet issues did exist and have existed for quite some time. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with merging it as long as those (presumably) notable seven venues are still listed (because lists and links are cool for a more navigable Wikipedia.) However, I do think that if the list ever grows to 10+, it should be split because it meets pretty much every requirement for a list (NLIST has been proven to be met and it has a recognized "navigational purpose" even if thought otherwise). Merging is just preventive to prevent it from becoming a directory with non-notables adding their business. That should not preclude there from being a list at all, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge notable instances to Las Vegas weddings per Rhododendrites above. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:36, 28 February 2023 (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.