Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighth Wonder of the World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eighth Wonder of the World
I just found this page listed as AFD without a discussion page, so I created one. Supermath 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (as nominator): I forgot all about getting back to the AFD I was about to start, so here's my reasoning, there is no commonly recognised "Eighth Wonder of the World". Anyone can call themselves an "Eighth Wonder", heck even Jerry Springer is introduced as so at the start of his show. In comparison, articles on the Seven Wonders of the World refer to lists compiled by notable people or organisations. "Eighth Wonder" is simply a vanity label often self-applied and an encyclopedia shouldn't be acknowledging everyone or every place that's been described as so. -- Netsnipe ► 08:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverified and bordering on unverifiable. Most of the items aren't supported as 8th Wonders even in their articles, and I see way too much "sometimes considered"s. By whom? This list has almost no factual content.Melchoir 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)- Keep Whoa, can't argue with that. It would still be nice if more entries can explain their declarers. Melchoir 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for reconsidering. About the declarers thing, a lot of the citations I found were rather vague -- a lot of "considered to be the eighth...", "called the eighth...", "known as the eighth," which allows inclusion on Wikipedia, but not as having been declared by a specific person. I'm not sure that many of them even have a notable historical figure that used this particular appellation (the list's entry for the Thames Barrier originally claimed that Elizabeth II called it the eighth wonder, but I couldn't find a citation for it, so I took it out). I'll keep checking around, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Dylan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just seems like it's too easy for some schmuck to invent one of those vague phrases. Oh well, few lists are going to be perfect! Melchoir 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for reconsidering. About the declarers thing, a lot of the citations I found were rather vague -- a lot of "considered to be the eighth...", "called the eighth...", "known as the eighth," which allows inclusion on Wikipedia, but not as having been declared by a specific person. I'm not sure that many of them even have a notable historical figure that used this particular appellation (the list's entry for the Thames Barrier originally claimed that Elizabeth II called it the eighth wonder, but I couldn't find a citation for it, so I took it out). I'll keep checking around, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Dylan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Whoa, can't argue with that. It would still be nice if more entries can explain their declarers. Melchoir 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Netsnipe has been notified that his AfD process has been fixed.
I have no vote on this one.--Targetter (Lock On) 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - Delete as listcruft. —dustmite 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Dumbo? Mickey mouse?????? Zazaban 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep improved drasticly ReverendG 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If kept, pare severely. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but immediately add references for as many as possible and remove the others. It seems like a reasonable article, given that the phrase is a common way to refer to various things (287,000 by Google). I absolutely agree that it needs references and needs them soon, but this article needs a {{references}}, not deletion. It's not beyond redemption. Dylan 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have gone through and found citations for most of the entries, and tagged the others with {{fact}}. Dylan 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep People please let's not become a mindless bandwagon here. This is a very famous term with strongly verifiable entities. It definitely deserves to be in Wikipedia. It would be a horrific mistake to delete this article.UberCryxic 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it has citations now - but rename to List of structures considered the eighth wonder of the world or something similar - it's essentially a list, it should be named as such. Crystallina 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer List of Eighth Wonders of the World for simplicity, or failing that, List of things considered the Eighth Wonder of the World (they're not all structures). Melchoir 05:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was pondering that for awhile - the first redlink had 'locations'. I just wish there was a better word than "things". Rename to something, in any case. Crystallina 06:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer List of Eighth Wonders of the World for simplicity, or failing that, List of things considered the Eighth Wonder of the World (they're not all structures). Melchoir 05:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for references, and rename as a list per Crystallina. Nice job Dylan. --Targetter (Lock On) 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It has citations and is a legitimate subject. -- Voldemort 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. VegaDark 06:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The term is an old-fashioned advertising slogan that has appeared in travel brochures for nearly everything conceivable. The list will never be exhaustive and the rule of inclusion will always be subjective. There is no information here. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "the rule of inclusion will always be subjective" -- it isn't subjective at all. The rule for inclusion, like everything else on Wikipedia, is whether a reliable source has identified the subject as an Eighth Wonder. This isn't Wikipedia editors deciding what ought to be on the list. I agree that the reliable source calling it an eighth wonder is somewhat subjective, but that doesn't at all make it inadmissable at Wikipedia; if it did, we wouldn't be able to quote album reviews or editorial remarks because they are POV. Dylan 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Well-cited article (thanks to Dylan) and frequently-used phrase. List of Eighth Wonders of the World or List of things considered the Eighth Wonder of the World are unnecessary circumlocution.--S0uj1r0 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [Reversed, see below. --S0uj1r0 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)]- Delete per Robert West. This isn't an encyclopedic list, it's a list of X with unassociated value Y where the unassociated value is a purely subjective phrase, a cliched advertising slogan. Use of the phrase Eighth Wonder is possibly notable by itself as a well-known 19th century slogan but this article isn't about the Eighth Wonder concept, it's just a list of uses of the publicity. MLA 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to Delete per User:Robert A West and User:MLA. You're both right, the list would indeed be inexhaustible, and the phrase is even now simply used to flaunt tourist traps in the article. The phrase is notable, but the alleged Eighth Wonders themselves aren't, and any mention of the phrase itself could probably be better made on the Seven Wonders of the World article. --S0uj1r0 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Robert West. Hopelessly POV and/or vanity. The fact it has citations fails to give it meaning or encyclopedic value. I'm adding my dog to the list, and citing my best friend for sourcing, since that seems to be all it takes... sorry, just kidding. Tychocat 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point, but your friend isn't a reliable source. Citing the New York Times, ESPN, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a lot different. I also fail to see how citing reliable sources in support of the article makes it POV or vanity; indeed, it prevents those things by creating a strict guideline of inclusion. Dylan 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Au contraire, my friend is an excellent source with great credentials. You see the problem with this list, yes you do. It's never-ending, always somebody's POV no matter how ponderous his/her resume may be, and you probably even see the irony in having 50,000 (or even a dozen) "Eighth Wonders of the World"! Tychocat 04:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to me that you're confusing the POV issue. Yes, it's an inherently POV statement to call something the Eighth Wonder of the World, but our sources are not held to WP:NPOV; only our editors are. As editors, we can't state categorically that X, Y, or Z is the Eighth Wonder, but we can say that A called X the eighth wonder, assuming that A is a reliable source. Consider, for example: Films considered the worst ever, Films that have been considered the greatest ever, List of people who have been considered deities, List of incidents famously considered great blunders, List of people who have been considered avatars, Place names considered unusual, and I could list dozens of others. I'm not implying that this article should be kept merely because there is a precedent, but that all those articles display other people's opinions. As long as they are reliable sources -- and I hope that comment about your friend was in jest, otherwise you severely misunderstand WP:RS -- their characterization of a particular subject is admissible. Dylan 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - no, I understand WP:RS quite well, thank you, but it is clear that irony does not communicate well. The fact we can admit to the inherent POV and RS problems here, yet people look away at the end result, bespeaks to underlying problems. Tychocat 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again, I disagree that there are any POV or RS problems; citing someone's opinion is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and falls right in line with WP:NPOV. Saying "The New York Times has called this film 'a masterpiece'" is perfectly fine to state in an article if it is sourced, just as is "The New York Times called the Thames Barrier the Eighth Wonder of the World." Yes, that's the point of the view of the Times writer, but I defy you to show me a policy page that says we don't include other people's published opinions on Wikipedia. What are these "inherent POV and RS problems" you claim to exist? Dylan 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - no, I understand WP:RS quite well, thank you, but it is clear that irony does not communicate well. The fact we can admit to the inherent POV and RS problems here, yet people look away at the end result, bespeaks to underlying problems. Tychocat 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to me that you're confusing the POV issue. Yes, it's an inherently POV statement to call something the Eighth Wonder of the World, but our sources are not held to WP:NPOV; only our editors are. As editors, we can't state categorically that X, Y, or Z is the Eighth Wonder, but we can say that A called X the eighth wonder, assuming that A is a reliable source. Consider, for example: Films considered the worst ever, Films that have been considered the greatest ever, List of people who have been considered deities, List of incidents famously considered great blunders, List of people who have been considered avatars, Place names considered unusual, and I could list dozens of others. I'm not implying that this article should be kept merely because there is a precedent, but that all those articles display other people's opinions. As long as they are reliable sources -- and I hope that comment about your friend was in jest, otherwise you severely misunderstand WP:RS -- their characterization of a particular subject is admissible. Dylan 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Au contraire, my friend is an excellent source with great credentials. You see the problem with this list, yes you do. It's never-ending, always somebody's POV no matter how ponderous his/her resume may be, and you probably even see the irony in having 50,000 (or even a dozen) "Eighth Wonders of the World"! Tychocat 04:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point, but your friend isn't a reliable source. Citing the New York Times, ESPN, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a lot different. I also fail to see how citing reliable sources in support of the article makes it POV or vanity; indeed, it prevents those things by creating a strict guideline of inclusion. Dylan 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. Yes, there may not be a lot of info there, but the pharse is real, and in wide use. Thε Halo Θ 11:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is essentially a worn out cliche used as a metaphore or simile for many, many things, some of which may in fact be wonderous; others, not so much. Agent 86 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Verified and common phrase; the article has dozens of cites! Batmanand | Talk 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per UberCryxic --Ageo020 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm.... I said "delete". I'm not quite sure how a subjective cliche is encyclopedic. Maybe you meant to refer to someone else? Agent 86 00:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - well referenced article built upon a common expression. makes sense to me. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: In reference to the earlier comment about reliable sources such as the New York Times, Googling for ("eighth wonder of the world" site:nytimes.com) returns 107 hits ranging from King Kong, the Royal Palace in Amsterdam, to the annual Mosquito swarm in New Orleans. This list can never be exhaustive because it's a cliche that's liberally applied to anything when a writer has run out of adjectives to use. -- Netsnipe ► 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for noting that. National Geographic has used the "8th Wonder" tag for King Tut's tomb, the pyramids at Teotihuacan and the Great Wall of China, as well as the Escorial. Either the sources are self-contradictory, or the term conveys no real information. For this reason, Peacock terms should be avoided, even when they can be cited to a normally-reliable source. Verifiability is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. In theory, a good article about the metaphor might be appropriate, but that is crap. Plus it has become such a buzzword, that famous instances of the metaphor being used are just background noise nowadays. Legis 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting article regarding a commonly used phrase. It's a list of places that refer to themselves as the 8th Wonder, and as that I don't see any problem whatsoever with it. They don't have to "be" 8th Wonders (who decides that?), the claim itself is interesting in explaining the common usage of the phrase. I was actually reading about Wonders of the World here a while ago and spent a lot of time following links from that page. --Rankler 12:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: By your argument, we could also have a "list of models who refer to themselves as beautiful". See the problem? -- Netsnipe ► 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. There is nothing interesting about that variant though, beautiful is a very commonly understood notion applied to an almost infinite number of things. In the case of the Eighth Wonder, there actually is no Eighth Wonder, despite it being a proper noun and a title. Obviously comparatively far fewer things exist that people would assert are the Eighth Wonder compared to things asserted beautiful, meaning the list is not only much more manageable but much more useful because of the rarity of the phrase. If you wanted to sort the page into things called the Eighth Wonder by third-party print media (ooh, let's) and those that merely claim themselves to be, fine. But I think both are useful for illustrative purposes. --Rankler 01:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree. Netsnipe, though "list of models who refer to themselves as beautiful" is obviously a pretty dumb article to create, it can still be verifiable and NPOV and all the rest. The only difference between that article and this is that "models who refer to themselves as beautiful" is a pretty useless and unencyclopedic topic -- who would ever need it? -- whereas "Eighth Wonder" is such an obviously commonplace expression (300,000 Google hits) that its inclusion on Wikipedia would clearly facilitate encyclopedic understanding of the common phrase. Dylan 03:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Rankler is incorrect in stating that the citations are only from the subjects themselves. The only times when the subjects' official sites are used is when they are quoting someone else (e.g. Akshardham), or when they make a broader statement like "X is widely known as the eighth wonder of the world," and in those latter cases, there is an independent citation backing the official one up (e.g. André the Giant). Dylan 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I had to supplement a few citations to make the above statement. Dylan 12:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. There is nothing interesting about that variant though, beautiful is a very commonly understood notion applied to an almost infinite number of things. In the case of the Eighth Wonder, there actually is no Eighth Wonder, despite it being a proper noun and a title. Obviously comparatively far fewer things exist that people would assert are the Eighth Wonder compared to things asserted beautiful, meaning the list is not only much more manageable but much more useful because of the rarity of the phrase. If you wanted to sort the page into things called the Eighth Wonder by third-party print media (ooh, let's) and those that merely claim themselves to be, fine. But I think both are useful for illustrative purposes. --Rankler 01:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: By your argument, we could also have a "list of models who refer to themselves as beautiful". See the problem? -- Netsnipe ► 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Note-worthy, not original research, has citations. — Wackymacs 18:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep But fortify with cites. Rhinoracer 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Each entry has at least one citation, more than a few two; why do you suppose it needs more? Dylan 03:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Markovich292 04:50, 16 September 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.
