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 merge to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia. I am only placing Oikonyms in Western and South Asia in the result because you're required when closing. However, please discuss the proper place on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-patnam[edit]

-patnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Dictionary definition about a place name suffix, unencyclopedic.

I found this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-wal (2nd nomination), and believe it has the same deletion rationale. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the below articles to this nomination:

Pur (placename element) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't believe the deletion of -wal was particularly well-informed, so I'd be weary of using it as a standard of comparison. The articles -abad, -pur and -patnam are not about place names, but about placename suffixes, and extremely common ones too. Content about broad patterns of toponymy is certainly encyclopedic, and the only meaningful question that I see here is about the best way to present that content: as separate articles, or merged into a smaller number of pages covering the broader topics. – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I will correct my nomination rationale (missed the word suffix), but I still am unsure if placename suffixes as a whole are encyclopedic. After doing more research, it appears that there is an entire category of these suffixes, so these other ones may have to be evaluated individually. Natg 19 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I'm of the same opinion then as now. We've merged this stuff regularly over the years, from E (prefix) to xe (pronoun). It is just a question of where, and we should be working that out rather than nominating these things for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like the only deletion rationale is WP:DICDEF? I'm not sure if this is really a reverse disambiguation article, a definition per WP:DICDEF, or a page that requires WP:GNG to be met, but I'm hesitant to vote !delete on a page, even a poorly formatted one, where I learned something interesting, used the page as a launching point, and kept exploring (same with -abad) and while I'm not sure how to assess its notability, I'm not sure deleting this makes the encyclopaedia any better. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -patnam per WP:NOTDIC. It is a definition and a list of examples. On the other hand, Pur (placename element) might possibly satisfy WP:WORDISSUBJECT, though I am not yet sufficiently convinced one way or the other. Cnilep (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oikonyms in Western and South Asia solves all three of these and they can all be redirected there, as (when the lists and the ridiculous flags are subtracted) there's actually much there as in these, except that I found sources for all of it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • -patnam will need to be added to that list, but I don't mind a redirect. I just don't think this information should be lost. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of sources for -patnam. I've been trying to find the good ones. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mind a merge/redirect to somewhere, but I don't believe these articles should be standalone articles. Natg 19 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia don't see evidence that this meets GNG but it can certainly be covered in that other article. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia Lembit Staan (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia, per above. jp×g 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NAD, absolutely no need to redirect and/or merge CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article Oikonyms in Western and South Asia is not a very suitable merge target for -abad, as the placename component is found beyond West/South Asia. – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia, most reasonable solution. 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (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.