Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National monument

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 delete. Interested editors are encouraged to create a disambiguation page/list page at this title, but I can't mandate that someone do it. Shereth 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National monument

Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a disambiguation page listing only those monuments / groups of monuments with 'national monument' as part their name. Dpmuk (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment: This nom seems to go against common sense as well WP:DEADLINE. Did nominator make an effort look for sources before stating that it fails WP:V? This is a list of monuments. A quick check of member articles show references present. This is a cleanup job and cleanup doesn't have a deadline. Without a better deletion rationale, I'm strongly inclined to keep. • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment: No objection to reworking as a dab page. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BURDEN, it is for those seeking that content be included to justify that with sources, not for those seeking that content be removed to show that sources don't exist or can't be found. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Applying WP:V this way skips a an important part of WP:Deletion policy and the WP:GD guide. In common sense application, editors should do some basic homework before nominating an article for deletion. That includes the nominating editors looking for sources themselves. AfDs consume significant editor time and attention. They should be the remedy of last resort. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambag page - I agree, should be a disambag page. --Meld shal 42? 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k, with no objection to DABifying per Dpmuk and Meldshal42. AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a heterogeneous list, with etnries of various degrees of sourcing and notability/ A proper list based on uniform standards, for various coutnries, might have a reason for existence here, but this is no help towards it. If it can be turned into a dab list, that would be a useful solution. DGG (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone take note of that date and time — DGG and I agreed on something! ;) Stifle (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we probably agree most of the time--but those are the obvious ones where there's no point both commenting, so the disagreements tend to stick out. This greatly under-represents the extent that we agree on basic principles here. DGG (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2008 (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.