The result was keep. Discussion centered around the question of whether the inclusion criteria for this list article were (or could be) clearly defined. While approaching the question in different ways, there was a rough consensus that there was, or could be such a bar (e.g., perhaps via third-party sources using the term, perhaps by the previous criteria mentioned by Uncle G.)
As an aside on the underlying policy requirements, our stand-alone list policies do not demand complete objectivity in the concept behind a list. WP:LSC says it best, "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.", if there's any problem with the objectivity of the previously-used criteria, the criteria BD2412 proposes would be firmly within policy. As a result, should there be any remaining disagreement over which of these criteria should be used, that can be resolved through normal discussion on the article Talk page. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:OR. As pointed out on talk, there is no criterion for what constitutes being "landmark". — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply