Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian landmarks

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 a catagory. but you need to work out what catagory and go do it since it wasn't clear to me at all closing this exactly what recirect is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian landmarks[edit]

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

Unreferenced and unscoped (and un-scopable IMHO). An existing comprehensive category tree and state templates do this much better. See for example Category:Landmarks in Perth, Western Australia and Template:Melbourne landmarks. Perhaps redirect to Tourism in Australia. Moondyne (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The topic of "Australian Landmarks" in general is best served by a category. CycloneGU (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - looks like an excuse to create an ad hoc gallery - no ref and little text suggest that category to state and location specific as suggested by nominator Satu Suro 05:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An indiscriminate list without any easily discernable criteria for inclusion. Entirely unreferenced. I don't think the redirect option is an entirely natural one either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - plausible search term. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, meaningless list and collection of photos.--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with Yeti Hunter above that is this a plausible search term, and also agree with SatSuro that this page is an ad-hoc gallery. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page is generalised and is mostly links and pictures (ColRad (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. As stated above, it is a plausible search term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2011 (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.