Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankings of retirement destinations in the United States
though I don't think INDISCRIMINATE is the right rationale. I find this to be more a case of  or, more strongly, . It also seems to involve quite a bit of . I agree with JayJay's comparison of this article to a "ranking of vacation destinations" or "ranking of best places to live", topics which clearly fall outside of Wikipedia's scope. Just because you can pull together a list of something from various sources doesn't mean that it adds up to an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. While it's certainly appropriate, in an article about a city, to mention that the city has been ranked by some notable source (''Forbes'', say) as one of the best places to retire, it's not appropriate to pull together lists from various sources and stitch them together into some overall ranking of retirement destinations. That's the part that reeks of original research and synthesis, and why I believe this isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia
— User:IllaZilla, 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTGUIDE||WP:SYNTHESIS (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)