Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood cross

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood cross[edit]

Non-notable cross. Prod tag removed twice without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, 205 Google hits. I didn't see anything relevant on the first few pages. Royboycrashfan 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirect if necessary. This is verifiable, and real. For great justice. 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So's my mobile phone, my desk calendar, and the packet of tissues I got from the Zhengyang Souper Restaurant in Guilin. Oddly, none of them have articles. --Calton | Talk 03:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt that - show me a reliable third party reference that discusses your phone, calendar, or tissues. For great justice. 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a lot of things are real, but they may not necessarily be notable. --Khoikhoi 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that there is anything in the deletion guidelines about notability either. For great justice. 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, you mean this page? T K E 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: not an official guideline, but it's used in personal judgement very often. T K E 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean that one. It's not deletion policy. For great justice. 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn/per nom. Amcfreely 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Prominent symbol in major US metropolitan area, often enough discussed in news articles, involved in church/state controversy regarding official city graphics. Note that part of dispute was whether image on seal depicted the subject of the article. Unfortunately, relevant LA Times articles apparently not available online. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Monicasdude 02:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, Frontpagemag, a very reliable source. --Calton | Talk 03:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An LA-area symbol so prominent, that "Hollywood cross" gets only 210 unique Google hits -- very few which appear to be about this bog-standard American religious civic priapism ("...Mainstream Hollywood cross-dressing comedy...", "...Bellflower movers are West Hollywood cross-country movers...", "...a busy West Hollywood cross-section on the fifth...", etc.). --Calton | Talk 03:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable LA landmark. And the discussion about the LA County seal is very POV to boot.David Hoag 06:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real, verifiable landmark. `'mikka (t) 08:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete No meaningful verifiable information abouit what kind of cross it is. `'mikka (t) 06:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with so very few relevant Google hits it seems nn. Google Image didn't come up with any picture at all. Gu 08:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, 210 Google hits is notable? --Terence Ong 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed that it is hard to research, but articles on things like this make Wikipedia useful. It's still a prominent landmark seen by hundreds of thousands every day. Here's a picture ([6], found at [7]) The article still needs a lot of work, but the subject is notable and interesting. ProhibitOnions 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonably informative stub about a public monument. Someone in LA should take a picture of this for us. Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a non-Californian, I've heard of the Hollywood sign, and seen it in print and movies. This cross, I've never seen or heard of. Is it notable just because a bunch of locals see it when they drive past? I don't think so. Fan1967 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a strange justification for removing real, verifiable information about an object. Something doesn't have to be famous to be worth documenting. For great justice. 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not challenge its reality or verifiability. Nor has anyone else. We know it's there. Fan1967 20:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why choose to remove information that, I for one, and at least some other people, want? For great justice. 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not about what people want or don't want. It's not a personal webpage. The question is whether it's a notable public monument. David Hoag 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a repository of random information or a collection of every possible fact. It's an encyclopedia. Something like the Crystal Cathedral is worthy of an article because it's a notable monument about which people will seek information. The Hollywood cross is not. It's a little-known, rather small public cross which is very difficult to see. David Hoag 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your attitude is disapointing. There's nothing 'random' about it. It's a public monument. I don't see why you get to choose what people can read about, and I don't see anything about 'notability' in the deletion policy. Sure its an encyclopedia, and anything that is verifiable and real should go into it. Not just what you feel is important. Your approach leads to huge disputes over what is or isn't important to different people. To someone living in the area the monument is probably more notable than something like Slashdot. To someone who browses slashdot, that is more notable. Both are verifiable, so let them stay. For great justice. 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My attitude is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about a consensus. You seem to think your opinion alone should take precedence. Wikipedia was designed not to be a giant repository of every known fact in the universe -- and to achieve that, information would necessarily be random -- but like any encyclopedia it was designed to encapsulate more notable information. You say, Sure its [sic] an encyclopedia, and anything that is verifiable and real should go into it. I'm sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is. That approach is in direct contradiction to Wiki's stated purposes. Have you read what Wikipedia is not? Your arguments strongly suggest you have not. I live in metro LA; I've never met anyone who said the Hollywood cross was a notable monument. No one seems to have linked anything here which verifies that it is, in fact, a notable monument. It is your opinion it is a notable monument, but opinions are not fact, and your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. If you think this is a notable monument, where is the proof that it is notable? David Hoag 02:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of notable is subjective. I can't 'proove' it's notable any more than I can proove that I want to keep it. That's the problem with your attitude. You don't like it, so you think no one else should have access to that information. That's wrong. For great justice. 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course notability can be proven or disproven. Others have already done so in this very discussion. That's what the whole AfD process is about, to review collectively the notability of flagged entries. And nowhere did I say "I didn't like it" so please don't put words in my mouth. You're making value judgments about me out of thin air. And it's not about restricting access. You're free to start your own free webpage on Geocities and talk about this particular cross, where you can provide all the information and photographs you want, which will be found via search engines. The entry simply is not encyclopedic nor is the subject notable at this time, as the consensus here seems to be showing. That's not to say it might not be notable in the future, although I do find that hard to believe, considering how small this particular cross is and how difficult it is to see. So please stop trying to make this into some martyr issue or some free speech issue, when it is neither. David Hoag 05:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that 'notability' is a concept that does not appear in the deletion guidelines. It means nothing more than 'things I don't like or don't approve of', and, if a majority of people who post on AFD are also not interested, then no one can look it up here. That's a terrible editorial policy. In fact, if you read the deletion guidelines, it ISN'T Wikipedia's policy. For good reason. For great justice. 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no cited evidence that is what it is called, and the article is unencyclopaedic in tone. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing special about it. It barely has anything about it on google. It's only claim to prominence is that the cross originally on the LA seal was actually a picture of it. The problem is that all the sources I have seen which claim the cross was included on the seal to represent the "Holywood cross" seem like they'd do anything to strongly push forward a certain point of view( namely that evil atheists are trying to take over the country). What seems a better source, the LA website's page for the old seal claims that the cross on the seal represents, "the influence of the church and the missions of California." This would seem to mean the seal of LA has nothing to do with the holywood cross, thus destroying it's one claim to notability. If anybody can show otherwise (through a reliable source), I'd be willing to change my vote. Shadowoftime 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please this is important monument in hollywood Yuckfoo 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you notice? David already conclusively prooved it's not important by, erm. Saying it's not important to him. That should be enough for you! You don't want to read about this, no body does. For great justice. 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please stop attacking other users. It's a violation of Wikipedia Civility rules. Please also label and format your comments correctly.George Bluth 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All but invisible public cross now almost completely blocked by a large hotel. Article claims it's "giant." In fact, it's smaller than most crosses on steeples. George Bluth 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:David Hoag --kingboyk 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, now not only every church school, church parish, pastor gets in, now we invite every cross, crucifix, steeple. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable but needs to be labeled a stub. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 03:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the above user made his first edit on April 6, 2006 [8].--Jersey Devil 05:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Argon233 T @ C  U ∠  06:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not by any stretch of the imagination a recognizeable landmark.BehroozZ 23:37, 8 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_cross&oldid=1137913915"