Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the seven natural wonders of Georgia (U.S. state)

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. Nomination was essentially withdrawn with only one outstanding delete !vote (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 18:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the seven natural wonders of Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

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

A simple list of seven places is not notable enough for inclusion as a standalone list. This should be merged into Georgia (U.S. state) or deleted outright. Jhortman (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable list with a solitary source that is unreliable due to tourism-promotion bias. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A simple list of seven places is not notable enough..." That's a meaningless sentence; notability has to do with the coverage of a subject in reliable sources, not with how many items it has. If you actually look at the source in the article, it's an entry on the Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia from the Georgia Encyclopedia, which is identified as "a project of the Georgia Humanities Council in partnership with the University of Georgia Press, the University System of Georgia/GALILEO, and the Office of the Governor." Hardly a mere tourism shill (unless we mindlessly dismiss all publications by a state government or state university that are about any topic within that state), and the article on the Seven Natural Wonders was written by a historian who teaches at a Georgia university. Perhaps more importantly, the article itself cites three further sources discussing the concept that were published over the span of a century. So while it may still be that this could be better covered within a broader article, the concept of "Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia" (to which this should perhaps be renamed, as it's really about a concept rather than a distinct list) appears to be notable. So let's see some comments that are a little less dismissive and a little more careful to actually examine the content. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Georgia Public Broadcasting-produced show Georgia Traveler also did an episode about the "generally recognized" Seven Natural Wonders. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now three reliable independent sources including a report from the Atlanta Georgian from 1926, a source with academic provenance and a tv episode as a secondary source for a sufficiently notable topic that should be made into an article. Kooky2 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the redundancy in the article be reduced? The current list is exactly the same as the 1926 list except that the entire Amicalola Falls State Park is listed now rather than just the Amicalola Falls themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see the two sources as anything other than a pro-Georgia state tourism scheme. As for that 1926 list, I still don't see this as an independent source - again, it's pro-Georgia state. I still stick with my earlier delete vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a slight promotional feel about all the sources (local college, local TV and local newspapers) which makes it arguably WP:PROMOTION or even WP:COI. An independent third party reference (possibly out of state or without a vested interest) might give it more neutrality and notability. I may revert my vote. Kooky2 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"state-wide" ≠ "local" (the Atlanta newspaper excepted, though it's a pretty major city to characterize as just "local"). And WP:COI is about Wikipedia editors. Since when do we ignore sources just because they are from the same state that is the subject? Do we dismiss everything any French source says about what is a landmark in France? Nonsense. Particularly given that we have university and public broadcasting-affiliated sources. So the sources pass WP:RS, notwithstanding unelaborated opinions to the contrary. And even if we accept that this is "promotional" in nature, it's still a notable "promotion" that has been maintained for close to a century and repeated by different, unrelated sources, so it's verifiable that these landmarks in Georgia have been repeatedly characterized as its "Seven Natural Wonders". postdlf (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still disagree. Georgia Traveler at the very least is a pure tourist source. Georgia Encyclopedia may perhaps be slightly less biased, but just because something is old or long-standing does not make it notable in Wiki terms. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia. The concept of Georgia's seven natural wonders certainly exist. Coverage is already identified above. To answer the complaint that coverage is only local (although I don't buy that argument in this case), here is an article from The State, a South Carolina newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that out of state link. I am looking for notability from "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". WP:N Of course, notability does not have to be world-wide but you would expect that if this is so notable it would be discussed outside the state boundaries of Georgia - as indeed it is. Comparing France, a country of 65m pop. with a state of 10m is not persuasive to me. Kooky2 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my comments above, in case that wasn't clear. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the criteria set out at WP:CSC as far as I'm concerned and I think there's enough for it to pass WP:LISTN. These are individually notable subjects which have been included in this specific list because reliable sources suggest they should be. Stalwart111 03:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the multiple sources already mentioned, the subject has received detailed coverage in The Buffalo News, a newspaper based in New York. The coverage isn't just local.--xanchester (t) 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The Buffalo News is owned by the same company that owns The Macon Telegraph, and this is a word-for-word reprint of an article that appeared two weeks earlier in the Telegraph. -Jhortman (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, it does indeed come from a Georgia newspaper. Either way, the coverage has been significant, and meets WP:GNG.--xanchester (t) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accede to the consensus - As the originator of this request, I can see the validity of the arguments for keeping this article, and respect that there clearly seems to be a consensus for keeping it. -Jhortman (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (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.