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 of the debate was article has already been deleted (note the redlink). Requests for UNdeletion go to WP:DRV. -R. fiend 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is relisted on Articles for deletion following the deletion review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names [1]. It was previously listed here. -- User:Docu

The page and location being discussed is "List of interesting or unusual place names". The content itself is currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names. At some point User:R. fiend had changed [2] the section header of this page to the misleading "Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names". -- User:Docu

and now it's back where it belongs. You can't AFD a deleted article. -R. fiend 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Similar to Inherently funny word which cites words considered "funny" by some, this page lists names that are considered non-standard toponyms by some sources. -- User:Docu
• Delete. unencylopaedic POV. Ian ≡ talk 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Borderline encyclopedic, but still useful. An enjoyable article, and papers (or at least newspaper articles) have been written on the subject. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Criteria too subjective. Another pointless list. -- Krash (Talk) 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm voting keep again because it's interesting to me Ruby 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - working on processes that improve the quality, verifiability, neutrality of the list items against criteria for inclusion on the page--A Y Arktos 07:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Although limit to unusual. "Interesting" is too subjective, but rarity can be judged within some limits.--T. Anthony 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -for the same reasons as Docu, Rhymeless, Endomion Copysan 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It isn't POV, nor is it subjective - anymoreso than any other wikipedia article. Source, Verify, attribute POV, etc, doesn't stop applying, and this article shouldn't be held to a higher standard than any other list. SchmuckyTheCat 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: Great article topic, inherently of interest; preferably interesting place names should be retained until such time as the article grows to the point where it needs to be split off. Ombudsman 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.  Grue  08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: and where's the article? Thanks/wangi 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was originally at List of places with interesting or unusual names (original talk page still exists), and a version is sitting there just now, problem is it's a cut'n'paste hackjob of a repost, so I've tagged it as ((db-repost)) (since it's missing the correct version history). We need to get the house in order here before we're even ready to do an AfD vote. First off the article was never orignally at List of interesting or unusual place names, that was just a mistake the review poster made. Thanks/wangi 09:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bring Back, article was redeleted out of process by R. Fiend. Once it's back, I'd support moving to wikipedia: namespace in the same vein as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Night Gyr 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per others above. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My reasons were already stated in the first nomination. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 11:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but attempt to address understand and concerns of those wishing to delete e.g. firm documented criteria for inclusion in the list, removing the word "interesting" from the title. SP-KP 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find this page potentially interesting/useful but am concerned about the inherent POV-ness of what constitutes being interesting or unusual. Would limiting the list to sourced unusualness be too unpopular of a suggestion? Savidan 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• English words with uncommon properties includes entries without citing sources. I'd be interested to know whether you feel the same about that page, or if not, what marks it out as different. SP-KP 12:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/bring back but needs culling down to include only names which have references to being interesting or unusual, rather than ones someone has just thought of -- Astrokey44|talk 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Bring Back!!! This article is very useful. I agree the title could possibly be changed to something a little less subjective, but all in all, the article isn't very subjective - in my opinion. For example, I think everyone can agree Fleahop is a wierd name for a town, no matter who you are or where you are from. I also don't see the problem of having this article, when you consider the fact that Wikipedia has extremely long, detailed article about most all Mortal Kombat Characters. See the one on Noob Saibot for example. KEEP IT!
• Keep a work-in-progress, but no need to delete said work for now. youngamerican (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it probably could use some cleaning up.--み使い Mitsukai 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft and inherently POV by design unless someone changes the article name to List of place names that you may or may not find to be interesting or unusual depending on whether or not you agree with the author and contributors who are apparently easily interested and amused.--Isotope23 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I would certainly not oppose a title change, seeing as so many people consider the title itself inherently POV, but the concept behind this list is perfectly encyclopedic, and as we've established numerous times in the past, amusing articles are not inherently less useful than serious ones. — Timwi 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Snargle 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've moved the article back to the WP namespace (Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names), as the move back into the articlespace was out of process. Docu's attempts to fix the vote by alerting everyone who voted to keep it before are pretty transparent, and not a good way to go about an aFD. -R. fiend 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took some effort to find it, since you didn't link it from anywhere. The article is now at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names. Changed that while I was writing my comment. Night Gyr 18:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The deletion while debate was progressing smacks of censorship. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this it? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_places_with_interesting_or_unusual_names&oldid=39045672 Keep for interesting content and a listed selection criteria. — RJH 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but delete some of the red links. Many names on the list are indeed interesting in the English language, and this list belongs on an online encyclopedia. Gilliamjf 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The interest or unusual nature of place names fails Wikipedia:Verifiability; compiling the list itself is original research. Ikkyu2 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in Wikipedia space under the guideline that persistently recraated articles are interesting to someone, and therefore keepable. Septentrionalis 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly-broad or biased. Until and unless someone can define criteria for "interesting or unusual," this is unmaintainable. --Karnesky 22:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fuzzy definition, potentially endless and of very encyclopedical low value. This could be interesting for Uncyclopedia, though. Pavel Vozenilek 06:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Somewhat interesting. Verifiable. We have several articles with subjective criteria, the trick is to cite sources. - Haukur 10:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Haukur — and in an encyclopædia filled with articles on characters from Pokemon, Star Wars, etc., there's room for this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. violet/riga (t) 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mel Etitis. Does no harm, items can be verified. No reason to delete just because every item on the list is not 100% verified and cited. If it bothers you that much, move the uncited ones to the talk page. Surely there are more important articles to spend our AfD/DR time on. Turnstep 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of interesting content (although unfortunately a lot of very marginal content also). older ≠ wiser 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List isn't perfect, isn't entirely verified, but it is verifiable (it can be sourced, and is in part.) As the topic has been the subject of several books and news articles, it is notable. Xoloz 16:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily verifiable. — Dunc|☺ 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I had to add the funniest placename in the Netherlands, Sexbierum. —Ruud 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if this is about moving it back to the article space. It's still inherently POV for reasons I expressed on DRV. Unorthodox, unusual, weird, interesting... it's all subjective and cultural. --W.marsh 05:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good list --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as it's in Wikispace - if it's put back in articlespace, I will commence to randomly and irrationally remove any city name I don't find interesting or unusual. If I'm reverted, I'll just add a squillion cities that I find interesting and unusual. Like, say, Richmond, New York City, Albany, Sacramento, Livermore, and a few thousand more. Who is anyone to tell me that Walnut Creek is less "interesting" than Delta? This entire list is completely and utterly subjective and hence unencyclopedic, and if I have to make a WP:POINT to do it, I'll do it. This list is patently and obviously original research, which is expressely forbidden by policy. FCYTravis 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we have an administrator threatening to vandalise an article - marvellous!--A Y Arktos 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd really have to stretch the definition of both "vandalism" and "article" to make that a true statement. -R. fiend 07:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who are you to say it's vandalism? I think Richmond is an interesting place name. Who are you to tell me it's not? You have no fact or source which says Richmond is less interesting than Phuket. Given the entirely subjective nature of "interesting or unusual," you have absolutely zero grounds on which to oppose said addition. I trust I've made my point clear. FCYTravis 09:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the concensus of this AfD is keep, then List of interesting or unusual place names will be an article. Threatening to add names that even User:FCYTravis presumably, by use of the emphasis around the pronoun "I" in his remarks, finds uninteresting given the context of his remarks and also his reference to his proposed violation of WP:POINT is vandalism in my book. I thought administrators were not supposed to behave like this. The pronounciation of Phuket gives rise to the link with criterion specified on the page - how would Richmond link to the criteria? --A Y Arktos 09:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "If the concensus of this AfD is keep, then List of interesting or unusual place names will be an article." Well that's not exactly true. -R. fiend 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Except the "criteria" are all entirely subjective and non-exclusive. "Exactly what is "interesting or unusual" is of course open to debate, but most of the names fall into recognizable categories" - note the weasel wording and the word "most." You have no grounds to oppose my additions or deletions, because the article itself states, it's "open to debate" - so who are you to impose your POV of what is subjectively "interesting" to you only, and not allow my POV of what is "interesting or unusual" to me? FCYTravis 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Haukur, et al. – the key is citing sources and predicating entries appropriately. For example, there are numerous treatments regarding the 'unusual' name of Swastika, Ontario: for one, a book by Alan Rayburn (a prior executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) called Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names, 2nd ed. (ISBN 0-8020-8293-9). Despite the obvious political intonations, prior attempts to rename the town to "Winston" were met with fierce opposition by local residents given other historical meanings of the symbol (pp. 79-80). If sources are cited, agreeable entries shouldn't be problematic. Hell (pun intended): even Kitchener, Ontario was previously called "Berlin." (pp. 78-9, 96-7 of Rayburn). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:13, 12 February 2006 (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.