Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual (4th nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual

Place names considered unusual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The vast majority of content in this article is original research and arbitrary. The suggestion of something being "Profane, humorous, and highly charged words" for example, is highly subjective and biased against anything that isn't within a person's own worldview (borderline xenophobic). There are a few things here that provide citations to indicate that the name is notable for its uniqueness, or that signs are stolen due to the name, but that's a different kind of article (something like

• Delete At heart any place name is going to seem "usual" to you if you are used to it. I can think of a city that to some people sounds like a refernce to sexual actions, but it is the capital city with millions of people, and to many others it is just plain a normal name. One person's odd name is another person's normal name. There is no global neutral way to cover this topic period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Unusual" is far too vague a criterion. Is
  Poughkeepsie unusual enough? A lot of the place names in Wales would probably look funny to many English-speaking people. Merthyr Tydfil? None of the sources' titles mention "unusual". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP — Although the article as is may have issues, this is a common topic for newspapers and books to cover and so it can be done in a Wikipedia-appropriate way. It needs work. That's no reason to delete. Thmazing (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. I like this wikipedia article. It is cool and it doesn't break the rules. That is called a role model. Silent-Rains (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ILIKEIT, part of an often cited Wikipedia essay. Do you have a policy based reason for voting to keep the article? —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete this arbitrary, subjective, POV-ridden article. FYI: Writing keep in all caps does not enhance arguments for keeping. "I like it" does not help. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is a fun article but it far from perfect — but it does not warrant a deletion. There are some odd 367 articles that link here and it would be quite irresponsible to wipe it without a comprehensive plan to remove all references. It may be a wiser option to rework this article to resemble the format employed by the
  Unusual Articles page, move it under the WP namespace or rename this article to "List of Unusually Named Places," much like ZimZalaBim originally suggested as well as purge all speculative & subjective language to offer a simple list with "unusual" names. Ifrenkel (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Delete. Merge entries into Wikipedia:Unusual place names and nuke. This article is very poorly written and a comprehensive list already exists under the WP namespace. Ifrenkel (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC); edited 03:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That already exists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh! I had no idea. I had originally tried searching for such an article but I ultimately failed to find it on account that

  Unusual place names redirects to the article in question of deletion, lol. I believe we can merge the valid entries on this article, such as Inaccessible Island onto that one, nuke this article and move all references across WP to Wikipedia:Unusual place names or create a simple redirect. Ifrenkel (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep with reference to previous nominations for deletion. This subject has multiple reliable sources indicating notability; problems with the state of article just mean the article should be improved, not removed. That said, are there any changes in policy since the last nomination (in 2009!) that would change things? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This article contains a great deal of information that is not included in the other page that people are suggesting to keep in place of this one. Information that I believe contextualizes languages and helps bring together the link between language and culture, in its own way. The link on the other page that redirects you back to this one is also clunky in my opinion, and would do better if the two pages were simply merged.Neptune1AX01 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this AFD early to see what any of the Keep or Delete opinions would think about merger to Wikipedia:Unusual place names.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP, and I think the category of "Unusual place names" has the same problems of the biases towards what is "unusual". I think the only way to be NPOV and properly sourced is to have a list/category of places "notable due to their names". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't want to be a complete party-pooper pedant, but Wikipedia isn't our little private joke thing. We can't keep an unsourced list of random names that gave some Wikipedian a rude giggle (
  Unusual_place_names) and delete an article that attempts to discuss the real social issues of places whose names have actually aroused interest in newspapers (this article). It's absolutely true: there are plenty of places whose names have caused a tourist-industry in signage-theft, caused political debates about the need to change the name, and been written-about in real sources because of their unusual names. These places are an encyclopaedic subject. I'm not claiming the existing article is great, or free of OR; but AfD isn't clean-up. If anyone thinks bits of this article aren't sourced, feel free to zap them. Elemimele (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The places may be notable, and
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch are even the same category of thing—the first is a blunt description, the second happens to share the name with a fictional character, the third is an expletive in a different language, and the fourth is just lengthy. Filing those under the single heading "unusual place names" seems rather dubious to me. TompaDompa (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It's not a vague concept. The definition is concrete, simple, and similar to everything else in Wikipedia: these must be places that have been written-about in significant, reliable sources purely because of their names. It's quite reasonable for one of our readers to be interested in unusual names; why should they be forced to glean the information from many tens of articles that they probably can't find (unless they can remember Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch)? The alternative would be to use categories, but since only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia users actually know about categories, we would be doing our readers a huge disservice to go that way. Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't create lists because the entries get significant coverage, but because the overarching topic does. Otherwise, we're engaging in synthesis by combining disparate sources to invent a novel topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.