Talk:Statue of Zeus at Olympia

Statue of Zeus at Olympia
Single geographic entity, encyclopaedic; compare Eiffel Tower, Nelson's Column (but also Grand Canyon, Great Pyramid of Giza). Are we a bit schizophrenic about these? Equinox ◑ 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, since this is one of the seven wonders of the world, why otherwise maintain Category:Wonders of the world. All outside this category needs to be deleted. 7 entries are not so much after all. Bogorm 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping something because it belongs to a category seems like backwards reasoning. If the category only contains encyclopaedic items, then the category is fallacious and should not exist either. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Grand Canyon?? Is this an artificial object? Wherefore did you list it? Bogorm 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the item of touristic interest is artificial or natural does not matter. I meant that these things are single specific entities that people might visit, and not useful as general abstract terms. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that there are exactly 7 prominent artificial monuments which every person who is knowledgeable in history knows by heart, and innumerable myriads of natural remarkable places (Grand Canyon, Angel Falls...) who are not known in their entirety even by the most skilled and conversant georapher simply because of their number. Bogorm 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Everybody" knows the 1&times;1 to 12&times;12 multiplication tables by heart. That isn't an argument for inclusion. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the original wonders of the world. Definitely Keep. —Stephen 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition: I would like to draw people's attention to WT:CFI, which appears to say that we officially must not include this. It's far too long for any sane person to use attributively. Equinox ◑ 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This should just go to RfV to attempt citation in attributive use. Let its advocates find some attributive use and insert it appropriately. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless cited in attributive use. Any translations that have accumulated can be conveniently stored in an appendix.  Since these issues straddle the line between RfV and RfD, a separate RfV is not necessary IMO.  I think we should delete Category:Wonders of the world as well; that is an encyclopedic category if ever there was one.  Some members deserve inclusion on their own merits, but some -- such as this -- do not. -- Visviva 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite what above commenters might have you believe, the term "Statue of Zeus at Olympia" was not one of the original wonders of the world. Indeed, from what I understand, no terms made that list. —Ruakh TALK 00:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. No good reason was given for deletion. CFI may not allow it, but CFI needs to be reworked as it does not allow France either. I fail to see the problem with including specific geographic entities, and the Grand Canyon is a perfect example. This term is no different. It's not even sum of parts. Olympia undoubtedly has many statues of Zeus, but this refers to a specific statue of Zeus that no longer exists. DAVilla 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless attested in attributive use. This does not fit the categories of Proper nouns that we keep per WT:CFI. If we don't like the exclusion of such a term, the remedy is to change CFI, not ignore it. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted per separate RFD above (various geographical places). Equinox ◑ 01:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that there was no consensus to delete this. I believe it was improperly deleted. —Stephen 16:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RFD discussion
For a RFD discussion that took place in 2008–2009, see Talk:Angkor Wat. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)