Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations with love locks

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 redirect to Love lock#Notable locations and controversies. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations with love locks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the point in this article, as this practise is virtually ubiquitous now. It might as well be called "List of pedestrian bridges" as far as I'm concerned. EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could probably do with some cleanup but it seems like a suprisingly worthwhile article. Artw (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Love lock#Notable locations and controversies. It seems best to confine the matter there as these items are actually ephemeral as they are subject to purges by the authorities and we don't have adequate sourcing to track this. Andrew (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love lock#Notable locations and controversies. Literally every bridge, fence or gate on the planet could potentially end up mentioned in this article. Even if we limit this to places that got media coverage for having love locks, there would still likely be a massive number of places listed. Having this as a standalone list will easily violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is inherently unencyclopedic, although redirecting to a section within the article that gives some of the more notable examples is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lists of places with oddball characteristics is indiscriminate. What's next List of places with more bars than houses of worship and other such constructs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2014 (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.