Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buildings and statues that are shaped like animals, plants or people

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. JIP | Talk 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings and statues that are shaped like animals, plants or people[edit]

This is far too broad of a category. If all the statues shaped like people were listed it would be huge. I tried to initiate a discussion of how this category could be pared down or split but got only one response that half agreed with me. JeffW 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just remove people, or restrict to people over 50 feet tall. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote: I don't have a problem with the list in principle, I just can't figure out what it's supposed refer to. Wouldn't this just about include every statue? Maybe something like List of non-human statues, or List of statues of fictional people would be more useful. Peter Grey 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Interesting idea, but it does need to be narrowed down. YellowPigNowNow 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You've got to be kidding me. Do you realize how many statues of living things there are in the world? Use a category for this. Fagstein 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A list of every single statue of an animal or person? Are you kidding? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this looks fascinating. And verifiable. For great justice. 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete assuming good faith, this is a noble but hopelessly impossible endeavour. There are probably at least hundreds of thousands of statues that look like people - because they are of people. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_charities was very similar. MLA 09:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too general topic, this would include literally thousands of statues, which would make it listcruft with no real point. JIP | Talk 09:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete statues is way too broad. Alternatively, Rename to List of roadside attractions (ala [1] ) and remove the statue references and historical examples completely. Ziggurat 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't roadside attractions cover something slightly different? Where for instance would Nelson's Column fit? MLA 10:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items listed are roadside attractions - the only exceptions are the Statue of Liberty, the Sphinx, and the Christ. Remove them and you've got a list of roadside attractions: a companion to Category:Roadside attractions that is sorted by location. Ziggurat 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite I like the article and how interesting it is, there are too many statues of such things (probaly a few million) and we cannot have the whole list here, this is some type of cruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think that the author or authors meant small life-size or even double life-size statues of people (life-size plants or animals might be okay if they are very large, like whales). A size restriction might help clarify things. A category might be better though, as there would be less temptation to create non-notable articles. -- Kjkolb 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crazed listcruft. What's next, a listing of city lampposts shaped like penises? RGTraynor 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be fascinating. For great justice. 16:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but maybe mention the interesting ones at Novelty architecture -- Astrokey44|talk 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of statuary is not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lists of many things on wikipedia, such as dams, bridges, buildings, etc. Where does deleting these stop and start? Kukini 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We start by deleting this one, and we stop when we've deleted all the "List of something spurious" crap that has somehow got into Wikipedia. --kingboyk 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a shame. Obviously, as the size of the encyclopedia is going to be much larger than conventional ones, different ways of organizing information, including lists, will be needed. Your approach ends up with Lowest Common Denominatorpedia, where only stuff that most people are interested in stays. For great justice. 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, but this isn't the way to do it imho. --kingboyk 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seen worse listcruft but this is far too ambitious and would be permanently incomplete. Deizio 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. --kingboyk 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and interesting. It should only list structures that have their own articles, or are detailed in other articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 19:02
Delete you have got to be joking me ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unmaintainable, impossible to even complete (what about statues people have in their houses shaped like an animal? What about Oscars; should we list every one of those?). --Rory0 96 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - what the...? --Khoikhoi 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Listcruft - unmaintainable and unreadabe = unencyclopedic. Johntex\^talk 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheer pointlessness. Fishhead64 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...statues that are shaped like ... people"? u p p l a n d 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, per most of the above. Sandstein 06:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - misguided in current form. An article restricted to buildings might have been amusing enough to get a keep vote from me. Metamagician3000 08:53, 9 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.