Category talk:Tourist attractions

This category was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category was nominated for renaming from Category:Visitor attractions to Category:Tourist attractions on 21 August 2015. The result of the discussion was rename.

Inclusion criteria

I have a problem with this category. It fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Visitor Attraction is a completely subjective term, pertaining to the business of marketing. Just as one visitor might deem something worthwhile seeing, another visitor would say to avoid it. How can this category be justified? Please discuss.- Gilliam (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes. Totally subjective. Shouldn't it be nominated for deletion? Student7 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming: Tourist or visitor attractions

The two CfD discussions above were for deletion and resulted in consensus to "keep", but the naming was not discussed. The main article is Tourist attraction and that is by far the more common name outside Wikipedia, featured in books over 20 times more than "visitor attraction": see Ngram. I suggest that the whole tree should be nominated for renaming accordingly. Comments? – Fayenatic London 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the common name rationale is right here. The most logical name should be used i.e. "visitor attraction" because not all visitors are tourists. We have Mastication but "chewing" is the common word. The commonscat is also "mastication". Also, in articles we use section the heading "visitor attraction" rather than "tourist attraction". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For visitors who are not tourists, e.g. business people attending a conference held in a venue or academics visiting a place to study it, there is no common connection that would make it WP:defining for the purpose of categorisation. It is the characteristic of a place as a tourist attraction that is being categorised. – Fayenatic London 09:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have a category for, essentially, WP:SPAM, i would prefer "Tourist attraction." This topic, at least, can be justified under a place article subsection, "Economy." "Visitor" is too vague. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Visitor attractions. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was approved, and the next layer of categories are proposed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 30#Visitor attractions. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]