Talk:Empire State Building
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mglovesfun in topic Empire State Building
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
WT:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities This is specifically listed as an example of something we should not include. Genius. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is in WT:CFI. It's been cited in attributive-type use, mostly with citations of "an Empire State Building". See the citations page. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, my fault. The example at WT:CFI prompted me to have a look, and so I compiled citations:Empire State Building (I see I was too lazy to format them correctly). I don't know if they're all suitably attributive, but all invoke the reader's understanding of what an Empire State Building is. Also, the theme of building one out of toothpicks seem to be pretty common. Never thought of updating the guideline after that. —Michael Z. 2009-02-23 01:24 z
- I'm a little unclear as whether the "an Empire State Building" citations have won acceptance as indicating attributive use. I think they should. I have just cited Eiffel Tower with great ease using http://corpus.byu.edu/. It allows a search for a word or phrase followed by a particular PoS, eg "Eiffel Tower" followed by a noun, to find attributive use as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I believe they have always been accepted as such, in that no entry with a sufficient number of such citations has ever been deleted. This is as it should be IMO; whether considered strictly "attributive" or not, such citations show that there is something useful for us to document, beyond the simple encyclopedic facts. Keep as cited, and let's mention its use as a byword for a large, impressive structure in the entry. -- Visviva 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlike the precedent one this is no wonder of the world. Bogorm 14:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Membership in the set of wonders of the world (ancient, modern, or natural)", is not a member of the set of criteria for inclusion, but is in the set of red herrings with respect to inclusion. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bogorm, compare the respective citations pages. I did a bit of work to show that Empire State Building is part of the language, in a small way. Can you add some quotes which shows how Statue of Zeus at Olympia is used in English? If not, then it should go, because this is not an encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 2009-03-24 16:17 z
- Keep and change CFI. DAVilla 06:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Kept, somewhere between no consensus and weak keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)