Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Wonders of the Medieval World


 * 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. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seven Wonders of the Medieval World


This article is about a list with no historical origins and is not and cannot be quality encyclopedic content.

I don't really see any good reason this article should exist. First of all, there is no evidence that such a list existed in any historical context. Secondly, there is no definitive list--it's basically a compendium of top sights lists in various travel guides. Third, many of the sites listed are not of Medieval origin (i.e., the Taj Mahal, Stonehenge, The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa, most of the Great Wall of China, the Hagia Sophia and the Leaning Tower of Pisa--the bulk of the list).

I recommend deleting this list to avoid further confusion. Phil Bastian 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better references can be found. The article itself states that it's "a list whose origin and make-up is unknown. No scholarly resource is known to mention it..."  This plus the overwhelming reliance on one website as a source brings up WP:V concerns. Shimeru 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. I wrote this article, actually re-wrote it. I did a lot of research and could not find any scholarly source that mentions it (which is probably original research on my part to say so in the article). I suspect this list is real and was created by Enlightenment or Romantic era authors (late 17th to mid-19th centuries), which is why many of the sites are not technically "medieval" - this was before clear lines of periodization came about in the 19th century - but obviously after the word Medieval was created in the Enlightenment era. This is similar to the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World list, which was actually created by Medieval authors who were romanticizing the ancient world. Many sources mention the list, and its exact make-up will change depending - this is typical of the "wonders" genre.
 * To summarize:
 * Just because a list has many vicissitudes doesn't mean it can't have an article. Magna Carta has this same problem, there is no single Magna Carta. It's really more of a type or genre than a single list.
 * The list is probably real from either the Enlightenment or Romantic eras, based on word etymology of "medieval", the choice of sites, and what is known about other "wonders" lists - making lists of "wonders" is a common genre that has been on-going with every generation since the ancient Greeks. Romanticism in particular is defined by its fascination and "romanticizing" the Middle Ages.
 * The way the article is worded now may be original research on my part and should not preclude that there really are some scholarly sources that discuss this particular wonders list.


 * I hope others might take an interest in helping further research it, and refine the wording of the article. Also I would not be adverse to merging it into a section of the Seven Wonders of the World article, at least until it could justify a split with stronger sources. -- Stbalbach 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Stbalbach above. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did a re-search of Google Books and came up with some new sources which puts the list in historical context, it's not a fake. I removed my speculations which are original research. -- Stbalbach 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my vote. Well done with the sources. Shimeru 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- while I am away from my sources at the present, once the classical list of 7 Wonders became known to the medieval world, then-contemporary lists began being created. I agree that there was no one definitive list, but that ought nto to block an article summarising which artefacts were the leading contenders. -- Simon Cursitor 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Stbalbach above. --Nehwyn 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Delete the sourcing just shows that someone considered that some of these 11 wonders to be among a non-existant canonical seven (to mirror the ancient world). The problems are as myriad as the potential sources: like a list of the seven best films of all time or the seven most important inventions, or the seven most influential ideas, etc.  Pure POV collection.  Also problematic is that most of these 11 wonders were not "of the Medieval World"; best I understand the medieval times really only apply to the so-called Western World and are somewhat bounded (roughly, hence ambiguously) by the fall of Rome (476) and the fall of Constantinople (1453). The term is usually reserved for the "Western World" because these events had great meaning there and would have been just random dates elsewhere. Using the roughly 1000 year period to define the Medieval: of the 11 items listed as the "Seven Wonders", only 5 -- Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, the Cairo Citadel, Ely Cathedral, and Cluny Abbey, -- clearly fit in the time frame (2 of these 5 are not considered part of the Western World to which the term medieval pertains).  Another 2 of the 11 may squeak in but only if we allow (POV) them: construction of the Great Wall of China continued into the period, but the majority appears to pre-date it; conversely, although construction of the Leaning Tower of Pisa continued into the 1600s, the majority fits the dates. The Great Wall also is not part of the Western World.  Stonehenge (prehistoric), the Colosseum (1st Century), and the Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa (2nd Century), all pre-date Medieval times. I could find no sourcing for the date of construction of the Porcelain Tower of Nanjing, but it is outside the Western World. Conclusion: the list is purely a POV selection of other POV selections based on no objective criteria and is therefore not encyclopedic: sourced or otherwise. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm.. at Wikipedia, not only are we allowed to write about other people's POV's, we are encouraged to do so. Verifiability, Not Truth. See my comments above about when this list was created, and what "medieval" meant to them. It is a modernism to hold this very old list up to current professional standards and then tear it down as inaccurate. Inaccurate to who? It's probably not even an academic list, more akin to the tastes of popular culture sometime between the late 17th and 19th centuries. -- Stbalbach 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If that were the article, it should better be titled Late 17th through 19th century views of what constituted the seven wonders of the medieval world, and the article's text would have to be significantly altered to buy into that proposition, and the sourcing should be of material or quoting material of that vintage, rather than late 20th and early 21st century travel guides. Since none of that is the fact, I stand by my position that this article is an uncomprehensive POV attempt by the editors here to identify 11 "wonders" without particular regard to time or place and label them the Seven Wonders of the Medieval World. That is POV, not writing about POV. Carlossuarez46 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Uncomprehensive" is not a reason to AfD, that's called a Stub, Start-class or B-class article. As for being "POV", please do delete or change anything you believe to be POV, we can work that out on the article talk page. The article makes no claim to being an authoritative list of the Seven Wonders, in fact just the opposite, it has many qualifiers. Nor are the sources just recent travel guides. Have you read the article lately? -- Stbalbach 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice use of a straw man argument, Stbalbach, no wonder your keep arguments cause delete votes. Oh, and by the way, I'll edit whatever I please. Your protectionist stand combined with a keep just confirms that the article is meant to be POV and any POV that conflicts with yours should not be included nor yours deleted. Seeing what seems to be the keeper's best argument, there is no argument that will likely change my mind: changing my vote to Strong Delete above. Carlossuarez46 05:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I look forward to working with you on improving the article. -- Stbalbach 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per arguing of Stbalbach. Do not merge - the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is already overflooded with promotion garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguing of Stbalbach isn't a reason to AfD, seeing as how I argued for a Keep. Also, what "seven wonders" list was ever not promotional in origin? -- Stbalbach 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Whilst I can't be arsed to look for links it's definitely something I've heard about before and so seems notable to me (please don't turn this into Elvis' Policy however, I'd never live it down.--ElvisThePrince 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough and I believe that it is encyclopedic despite the discussion to the contrary. I personally do not see anything that is POV but that is just my own POV :) -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 19:50, 12 November 2006 (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.