Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world's largest roadside attractions


 * 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. Although the article is clearly in need of referencing, the consensus is to keep. I would recommend that some of the 'keep'ers perhaps try to find some reliable sources? If I get a chance later this week, I will try to look up some myself --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

List of world&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article with very unclear topic, the places in question have little if no notability, as they are not the "world's largest" anything. Voyaging(talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The phenomenon of large objects as roadside attractions is clearly a notable one and needs to be addressed in some way on wikipedia. I think most if not all of these will be mentioned in local articles, so is quite a good idea to bring them all together in a list. Many indeed are the world's largest - the world's largest model of a guitar for example. I write as an Australian, as we are rather proud or perhaps sometimes bemused by the large objects that attract, or try to attract, tourists along our roads-- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Totally unsourced, which was pretty well accepted back in Wikipedia's old days, so I won't miss it if it's booted from here. However, it was and is a fine idea for an article topic.  To the extent that something is listed in a published tour guide or another reliable, verifiable source as billing itself as the "world's largest _____", it would merit an entry on the list.  I don't give a shit whether the world's largest ball of string or whatever would be notable enough for its own article-- some of these probably would be able to prove that they keep ending up in the newspaper on a regular basis or even editions of the Guinness book-- but I don't want to encourage people to make lots of individual articles about these dubious attractions.  Mandsford 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It sorely lacks references, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree that this is a fine idea for an article topic, but verifiability is not optional. The article has had plenty of time to be made compliant with WP:V and nothing has been done about it. Per WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." In February 2009, an editor added tags to challenge every unsourced item, but they were promptly removed: . Location (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It needs serious help, but the subject is notable. Hash789 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly rename - Many (if not all) of these eccentric attractions are independently notable by our guidelines. As such, it seems only appropriate for us to comprehensively aggregate them in a way that is informative to our readers. —  C M B J   00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but turn it into one of those lists where every entry is a section, so more info can be included.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree keep it. Needs work but undeniably notable.AWHS (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename and Keep. The current name indicates a vague inclusion criteria and smacks of Original Research. Perhaps a more appropriate name would be List of claimed largest roadside attractions. Regardless, the topic is notable. -- Pink Bull  20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that we should drop the 'largest' word all together, because that's really the root of the problem here. Perhaps we could work to refine something like List of giant roadside attractions. —  C M B J   20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Removing "largest" and just leaving "giant" would make the inclusion criteria even more vague and would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of spammy non-notable attractions. -- Pink Bull  22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * List of largest monoliths in the world seems of relevance here. —  C M B J   02:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, and add sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2010 (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.