Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visitor attractions in Paris
- 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. - Bobet 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need for this list: category already exists covering same topic Cordless Larry 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both. The list of "visitor attractions" is annotated to explain what each entry is. The list of museums is about 50% redlinks. All that information would be lost if we just kept the categories. Postdlf 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the list. It does deliver more information. Someone once said that categories would replace the lists on wikipedia, but it hasn't worked that way. Bejnar 04:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We're an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but rename properly to List of visitor attractions in Paris. Paris is just about the only city (perhaps Rome or Athens?) that is so densely packed with world-famous, um, "attractions", so we can make an exception. I'm trying to think of a more encyclopedic word that will include churches and monuments. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I like "landmarks" myself—its application doesn't depend on whether the ___location is frequented by tourists. Postdlf 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble with "landmarks" is that it also has a formal meaning, i.e. buildings designated as landmarks by an authority. --Dhartung | Talk 12:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone would assume we're being that specific, if the title is something like List of landmarks in Paris; there's no suggestion that any formal designation is involved because no authority is named. Postdlf 14:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble with "landmarks" is that it also has a formal meaning, i.e. buildings designated as landmarks by an authority. --Dhartung | Talk 12:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I like "landmarks" myself—its application doesn't depend on whether the ___location is frequented by tourists. Postdlf 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both; redlinks in lists encourage expansion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.