Talk:Hanging Gardens of Babylon

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)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Do we need this? Apart from Great Pyramid of Giza, this is the only of the wonders of the world we have. -- Liliana • 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC) (addendum: note also that Statue of Zeus at Olympia failed not too long ago!)

Delete, not a word or an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza passed for no consensus in 2008. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's delete that too. There's no logic in keeping a pyramid and letting a hanging garden fall. --Hekaheka 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's nominate it separately though, right? Or just add it into the bottom of this debate? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This entry is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which accurately states that there is no consesus on complete criteria for inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entitites. What I am looking at is whether the entry can carry useful lexicographical information. And it can: it states that "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" is capitalized as a proper name, whereas the same object is often referred to in Czech by "visuté zahrady Semiramidiny", capitalized as a phrase that is not a proper name. The entry contains Russian translation "висячие сады Семирамиды", capizalized just like the Czech translation. The Russian translation refers to the object by reference to Semiramis rather than Babylon, an interesting lexicographical fact.

As an aside, Statue of Zeus at Olympia mentioned by the nominator Liliana was deleted two years ago on 5 December 2009, with a RFD discussion that had 4 votes for deletion (Equinox, Visviva, Ruakh, DCDuring) and 3 votes for keeping (Bogorm, Stephen, DAVilla ), so it should not have been deleted, as there was no consensus for deletion. Admittedly, the text of CFI contained the unvoted-on attributive-use rule back then, so the entry probably failed to meet CFI at the time. --Dan Polansky 13:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is also a place name, for which we have no consensus. The main objection that we have for place names is that there are so many of them, including streets, buildings, and parks. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World hardly causes a prioritization issue for us, because as the name implies, there are only seven of them. We have entries for every major geological feature, country, city, and astronomical object. We even have the names of some important streets, parks, and buildings. The threshold for us is the small places.

The other problem with place names is the lack of any lexical information. As Dan pointed out, some entries should be kept when they provide lexical, and not just encyclopedic information. ~ heyzeuss 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why so quick? We are not in a hurry. Let this sit here for a few more weeks (maybe until spring?). -- Liliana • 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. They are/were gardens, in Babylon, that hang. Anything further is for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)