Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary of views in Deletion Review of List of interesting or unusual place names[edit]

(currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names).

NOTICE: This aims to restore the above list into article namespace. The deletion was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination) - 2nd nomination cut short and referred back here for the second time. ( This is not about the nearly empty Place names considered unusual which is currenty listed on AfD.)

Keep Deleted[edit]

  1. Keep deleted FCYTravis 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep in wikispace --Francs2000 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Please, just {{sofixit}}. Until then, it should stay out of mainspace. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep in Wikispace and do not undelete in article space per FCYTravis.--W.marsh 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Keep deleted Rossami (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse deletion -- nae'blis (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UT
  7. I guess I agree with what was done to resolve the debate. Tckma 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keep deleted. mikka (t) 09:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keep deleted still as subjective as ever. --Doc ask? 10:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keep deleted - JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep deleted Pavel Vozenilek 12:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Keep in Wikipedia space, out of article space: Geogre 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Comment. [] Endorse closure of 2nd AfD. [] Endorse closure of 1st AfD. [] Endorse result of 1st DRV. [] Leave article deleted, at least in main namespace. []-ikkyu2 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Move to close with status quo. [] Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided[edit]

  1. Undelete I'm provisionally withdrawing due to the new article as I think it could become something verifiable and valuable. Although I also favor the original version surviving at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names.--T. Anthony 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep the article either in the main (article) or the Wikipedia namespace, or even the User namespace. — Instantnood 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Undelete/Restore to article namespace[edit]

  1. Undelete, nominator. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Restore to / Retain in Article namespace SP-KP 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. comment. agree with sp-kp. -- Astrokey44|talk 03:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong undelete The actions of R. fiend were absolutely inappropriate for an administrator.  Grue  10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong undelete as per Grue. Could User:R. fiend please refrain from exercising his admin powers on this article again -A Y Arktos 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Undelete Jtmichcock 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opinion: [] there's nothing wrong with its existing. [] 207.176.159.90 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Undelete/Restore to article namespace. -- User:Docu
  9. Undelete as per the last time. violet/riga (t) 12:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think the original list article should be in the article namespace WITHOUT all of the ridiculous tags indicating that citations are needed. [] However, I can accept as a compromise keeping the article in Wikipedia namespace. In no case should it simply be deleted. older ? wiser 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Undelete. Clearly no consensus on the second AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Undelete and keep the article, damn it — I can't believe R. fiend is getting away with this. [] — Timwi 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Undelete Saga City 10:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Comment . This element should be restored. LordAmeth 12:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. undelete: Ombudsman 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Undelete per Grue, Sjakkalle. Kappa 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Undelete and restore to article namespace. youngamerican (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Undelete. —Nightstallion (?) 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Undelete and restore E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Undelete Turnstep 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Undelete and restore [] Jonathunder 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Undelete - [] zoney ♣ talk 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion Review[edit]

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 rather complicated.

First of all, I am closing this discussion under two assumptions: 1) I never participated in any of the deletion discussions regarding this content; and 2) this discussion has been ongoing for long enough for it to be closed. If either of these are found to be incorrect, I welcome immedate reversal of my decision by anyone.

In a discussion such as this with so many valid options for the form and location of the disputed content, simply tallying "votes" isn't going to work. For posterity's sake, I find that around 60% of the participants in this discussion alone (I did not tally the other discussions) favor deletion or endorse the status quo (maintaining the content in projectspace). However, I find that a few of the undelete "votes" are based on faulty assumptions or arguments, and many of them express opinions that I find are compatible with the status quo. The bottom line here is I'm not doing this one solely by the numbers, because I don't think vote-counting would be particularly meaningful in this case.

around 60% of the participants in this discussion alone... favor deletion or endorse the status quo (maintaining the content in projectspace) -- to the contrary, the tally above seems to suggest that around 60% of the participants favor keeping or revoking the status quo. I think the key issue is restoring the useful content; content beats process. But the process issue does seem to have failed. If DRV aims to be effective, it needs better standards and better collective oversight. +sj + 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to keep in mind that individual deletion discussions can never trump core policies like verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. We can't use homegrown definitions of "interesting" or "unusual" to define inclusion criteria for a list. We must be able to verify that someone, somewhere outside of the Wikipedia community, feels inclusion of every entry in the list is merited. I reject the notion that lists or "funny" articles can use a more relaxed version of the core policies. However, the solution to unverifiable, original, or POV content is generally not deletion of the entire article, but removal of the offending content. In the case before us, the original article may have been deleted, but its content has been preserved in projectspace, and the verifiable entries have been included in a new mainspace article. Given that, I feel it is best to endorse the status quo and keep both the mainspace article and the projectspace article where they are.

Additionally, Turnstep offered up what I think is a good idea:

Undelete the original article, merge all these other ones into it, immediately move any unsourced entries to the talk page, put a notice on it that unsourced entries will be removed, and monitor it for such additions.

All of these actions have essentially been done, except for a history merge of the two articles. I think this would be an even better compromise; however, I am uncomfortable mandating this through DRV, since I'm unsure if it's technically feasible or desired by all of the editors of both articles. I would suggest that discussion of this idea take place at Talk:Place names considered unusual rather than here on DRV. android79 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This essentially redirects the old article to new one and makes the edit histories of both incomprehensible. Besides, it doesn't meet the purpose of "Deletion Review". -- User:Docu

List of interesting or unusual place names[edit]

(currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names).

NOTICE: This aims to restore the above list into article namespace. The deletion was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination) - 2nd nomination cut short and referred back here for the second time. ( This is not about the nearly empty Place names considered unusual which is currenty listed on AfD.)

This article, which has over 2200 edits and has been around for three years, could be nominated for adminship if it weren't so controversial this week. It was deleted out of process, then during the resulting debates, recreated and moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. It certainly does not belong there; all similar lists (List of city listings by country, List of misleading place names, &c) are in the article namespace. The article was then placed here for review, and the result was not handled by the book.

The article should be 'undeleted' and restored to its original title -- and then perhaps put up once more for AfD. A second AfD nomination ran for two days, generating over 30 votes, predominantly to keep it; but was closed early for process-lawyering reasons -- that is, because the same discussion should be had here. +sj +

NB: There were good debates raised about how to determine whether a name is unusual or interesting; these are useful to have, and hopefully good revisions of the list will come from them. Undeletion and restoration of the original title should in no way to minimize those debates. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, nominator. +sj + 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguments about verifiability of some of an article should never cause such articles to be deleted, nor its history to be moved "elsewhere" while a new article is created. Parts of this article are clearly measurable, verifiable, and 'unusual'. (Numeric placenames, longest/shortest names, two-letter names.) There is an entire list of criteria by which various names have been flagged 'interesting' or 'unusual' -- if you dislike one or five of them, remove them; or discuss this on the article's talk page.
    • Arguments about the Wikipedia: namespace being an appropriate place to put content needing cleanup : these need to stop. That is not what the Wikipedia: space is for. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find someone put the current Wikipedia: page up for deletion in another month, because it obviously doesn't belong there.
    • This is mainly an issue of process. Active VfD or WP:DRV contributors should not feel that they can engage in talk-page discussions with a deletion axe in their hands.
  • Keep deleted in article space (keep in WP space). Here's why. The first AFD was a perfectly valid delete. The user who brought it to DRV the first time used erroneous numbers to justify it (which shouldn't matter, as AFD is not a vote). The article was moved to the WP namespace (as suggested by several users, both in the AFD and the dRV), and the DRV was closed (by me) endorsing this move. It was then recreated in the article space out of process. Furthermore the article itseld is falwed beyond belief. Allow me to elaborate.
This article is downright ridiculous. Despite all these assertions I keep hearing that it is "easily verifiable", no one has cited sources for these (with very; few exceptions, and only very recently). When asked what exactly it is that makes these "interesting" or "unusual" it seems the only answer we ever hear is "Listen! This place is called fucking, Austria!!!!!! Get it??? FUCKING!!!! Isn't that a hoot???" Um, maybe, but it's not a source, and the article has this aura of having been partially written by Beavis and Butthead (huh-huh huh-huh "Dix Hills", huh-huh-. They said "Dicks", huh-huh-huh). Can hardly believe they missed Uruguay ("U-R-Gay", get it?), moronic? Absolutely, but, unlike almost every other name in the article, I can actually find a source for that one. I know we have some pre-pubescent editors here, but do we need to advertise that to the world? And as long as we're loading up the article with juvenile humor, where's Johnson, Tennessee (FYI "Johnson" means "penis" (titter))?
And the problems go on. I mean, do we really want to include street names? Of all the millions and millions of streets in the world I'm sure we can find thousands that will get your average six-year-old in hysterics (which seems to be among the inclusion criteria here). Do you really want me to find a "Pu Street" somewhere on the planet? Because I bet I can. He same goes for informal names of neighborhoods. Alphabet City? It even actually makes sense for a neighborhood defined by lettered streets, so what's so interesting or unusual about that anyway? And then there are those that just confound me.
Lolita: would that be interesting if it weren't the name of a Nabokov novel? If someone publishes a book called "Meriden" do we get to include Meriden, Connecticut? Vader: let me guess, if we imagine the word "Darth" in front of it… Mashpee: sounds a little strange to anyone who doesn't live in a part of the country where every other town is some Indian word, to those of us who do, utterly unremarkable. Sandwich: you do realize that the food item was indirectly named after the place, right? Ware, Massachusetts? Because it's a homophone of "Where?" Well, get that spelling and that question mark at the end and you might be on the right track, but that is just retarded (how about Wareham (as in "where's the ham?")). Lough Neagh: is there anything even slightly interesting or unusual about that? Anything with the name of an animal is unusual? Guess what? That used to name things after animals all the time! Oxford? Oxen used to ford there. I can't think of anything less unusual. And, to top it off, what people try to pass off as a source is that another flawed Wikipedia article insists that these words are, by definition, downright hilarious! That's not a source.
And there's the opposites that make the list: words that are too much common English words (Beer, Commerce, Drain, Eagle) make the list, and those that don't sound like English words at all make it too (Ouagadougou, Schenectady). Well guess what, there's tons of places in foreign countries that sound odd to English speakers, they may even sound (get ready)….foreign. Let's take out my trusty atlas and look at Sumatra as a somewhat random example. I see places named: Pasirpangarayan, Pulaupunjung, Talanglambangantir Kutacane (WHY do they insist on cutting their canes there. That's just CRRRAZY!), Baganslapiapi, and so on and that's without even really trying. Do some of those sound atypical to those of us who live in places like Carson City? Sure. Are we going to include half the continent of Asia? I sure hope not.
At least some of the worst offenders have been removed (Amarillo? Bagdad, Arizona (but not Moscow Idaho?)), but that they were ever included is pretty sad. And I bet some which are included actually could be verified by a third party source (Truth or Consequences comes to mind) but no one has bothered to. People seem to think "Oh yeah, we could so verify the shit out of these if we wanted to"; is the same as actual verification. It is not. Some people have compared this to articles such as Films considered the worst ever, but we must keep in mind that that article, imperfect as it is, really went out of its way to get verifiable sources. This one fails utterly in that regard. Trying to pass this off as an encyclopedia article is an insult to every encyclopedia on the planet; mostly this one. -R. fiend 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to / Retain in Article namespace R. fiend has made a valiant attempt to defend deletion above. I am going to attempt to put the case for retention/restoration; hopefully I will do this justice but if not I apologise ... it's past midnight now here in the UK.
There seem to be two main things that are causing problems:
First, that the article title contains the word "interesting" and that this makes the article subjective. I have to say that this is a fair point. However, I would ask - why does this one word invalidate the whole article? I've been a Wikipedia editor for about a year now, and I notice a recurring pattern in deletion discussions, which is that often there is just one thing about an article that an editor takes a dislike to, and from this comes a recommendation to delete, without a pause to think whether there is anything worth salvaging in the article. Clearly, from the amount of support that retention of this article is getting (and yes, I agree that polls are evil too, but ...) there is a good case that the article has at least something in it of (encyclopaedic) merit. Instead of just going for the "nuke it" option, we should all be trying hard to see each other's point of view and identify what in the article is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't, and tidy it up accordingly. I have proposed, in each of these debates, that we try to agree some criteria for inclusion, and assess the list against that. I appear to be being told that that is impossible, but without any arguments as to why that is the case. I agree that is is difficult but in the interest of community harmony, it has to be worth a go?
Second, the arguments that the article lacks sources and is POV. Among the people who are espousing these arguments are some very experienced editors, and so I can't just dismiss this view out of hand, but I really do think that people have got into some quite muddled thinking on this. I think that the cause of this is that the article is presented as a list. Because of that, proponents of deletion are insisting on a higher standard of verifiability than they would for any other article. Specifically, not only are sources for the existence of the place names being asked for, sources to justify inclusion of the names in the article are being asked for. We DO NOT do this for any other kind of content. If an article is written as a piece of prose, not in list form, then the inclusion of content that is obviously relevant to the article's subject, without editors having to find a source which proves that it is relevant, is widely accepted. Sometimes there may be items of content that are perhaps peripheral and these are then debated by editors, but by and large we don't have a problem here i.e. we don't have those debates over EVERY sentence in EVERY article. Just because this article is presented as a list, I don't see why we have to treat it differently. The Wikipedia policy on citing sources exists, as I understand it, to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't end up full of errors (accidental or deliberate), and not as a means of imposing a rigid and bureaucratic editorial process when one isn't needed.
So in summary, if we drop the word interesting from this article's title, agree some inclusion criteria, and then assess the article's content against these, we have the basis for a perfectly valid article (with no need for factcheck notes on every line) in the article namespace. Parallels exist — English words with uncommon properties for instance (note: this one is written as prose) — I think that attempting a solution along these lines has to be a better way forward than continuing with the divisive mess we're currently in? SP-KP 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we need sources to justify inclusion of each and every single entry, because inclusion in a list of things which are allegedly "interesting" or "unusual" requires that someone else call them "interesting" or "unusual." Wikipedia editors cannot just insert things in the list that they find "interesting" or "unusual" - that is prima facie original research, something which is specifically prohibited by policy. Please see Films considered the worst ever. "The movies listed have achieved a notable level of infamy, through critical and popular consensus." That is an acceptable way of doing things - each entry is sourced with reasons why it is among the worst ever - ratings from movie critics, box-office figures, fan votes on IMDb, etc. This list has none of the above - it's just a list of any name someone ever laughed at. That's not encyclopedically acceptable. FCYTravis 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me see if I can illustrate the argument above with an example. This does require you to be able to see a parallel between an article which has its content presented as a list, and an article which has its content presented as prose. Not everyone's brain is wired up the same, so that might be difficult for you to do, in which case this is perhaps not going to help, but I hope it might help at least some people to see where I am coming from. Let's take the article Kansas. What if, instead of creating an article entitled Kansas, someone had created exactly the same article, but had placed an asterisk at the start of each sentence, and entitled it List of facts about Kansas. Then, imagine that over time, other editors had come along and added a mixture of facts, some of which were undisputedly about Kansas, and others which, although the editors adding them believed to be about Kansas, were viewed by other editors not to be about Kansas, such that the article was a bit of a ragbag of facts of varying relevance to the subject. Now try to imagine that someone spots this article and thinks "what a pile of poo" and nominates it for deletion. Try to imagine the deletion discussion for this article. Although there would be a lot of commonality between that discussion and this one, I would hope that somewhere along the line, someone would make the common sense point that an article on Kansas is actually quite a useful thing for Wikipedia to have in it, and that while the article up for deletion needed to be tidied up, rationalised, and written as prose, it could still form the basis for the Kansas article. That proposal would, I think you would agree, probably carry the day on first pass. I doubt very much whether people would be insisting that every fact that was to be retained in the article not only had to be supported by an external source, but that there must also be an external source stating that the fact was sufficiently important to be included in an encyclopaedia article about Kansas. We'd use our judgment based on some agreed principles to decide which facts did and which didn't merit inclusion. I don't think anyone would say that using that judgment constituted original research, or that the resulting Kansas article, because it went through such an editorial process, was so blighted with POV that it had to be deleted. To convince me that an article entitled Unusual place names has no place in Wikipedia, you will need to try to explain why it is different from an article on Kansas. If this boils down to a difference of opinion on what sort of content Wikipedia should and shouldn't contain, then fine, we'll just have to agree to differ; if there is something more than that which marks these two articles out as different, I'd really like to understand what it is, but nowhere in the deluges of words written on this subject have I been able to detect what that difference is. SP-KP 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The primary difference between the theoretical Kansas article and this article is that "The captial of Kansas is Topeka" is a fact, no one seriously disputes it; whether "Dix Hills" is interesting or unusual is an opinion. Whether someone has such an opinion is basically a fact, but not an easy one to establish. If our criteria is that someone, somewhere finds this place name to be interesting or unusual, then there is not a single place name that we could exclude. Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between a list and an article, and wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should concentrate more on articles. Lists too often (and this is certianly no exception) encourage readers too add anything that pops into their mind, especially when they're as subjective as this. A list of facts about Kansas article would also be a spectacularly bad idea. -R. fiend 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a really helpful reply, as it is now obvious to me at which point our thought processes diverge. The divergence seems to come at the point where you are translating the logical entities involved in the hypothetical Kansas situation across to the Unusual names situation. To understand it, we need to talk ontology. I would categorise the statement "The capital of Kansas is Topeka" as a "piece of information having encyclopaedic merit" (these are pieces of information which we believe are valid to include in Wikipedia, facts which we think that readers ought to be able to learn from reading a Wikipedia article). This is a fundamental unit of categorisation relevant to any discussion of this nature; it sits in the space between "word" and "article". To ensure we are using our Kansas analogy correctly, we need to take care when we identify the corresponding thing in relation to the Unusual names article, and pick the correct thing. If I have understood you correctly, you have tranposed "The capital of Kansas is Topeka" to "Fucking, Austria is an unusual name". I believe this is incorrect - what logic theorists call a "category mistake" - and that the corresponding thing is actually a statement something like "There is a town called Fucking in Austria, which is spelt the same way as an English word with a sexual meaning". You would agree, I assume, that that is a fact which we should reasonably expect readers of Wikipedia to be able to find out? If you think about things in this way, then there is nothing wrong, or at least nothing against policy, about an article containing a set of such facts. To include these facts in the article is not POV-pushing, or original research, and as long as this fact itself is sourced it's not a breach of the verifiability policy — it's just the editorial process. If you're following the logic this far, then all we're left with to disagree on are the criteria for inclusion of entries (i.e. this is merely an argument about different methods of arranging facts into articles). I've said all along that arriving at an agreed set of criteria will be difficult, but it surely is not beyond our abilities to arrive at some kind of consensus? SP-KP 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, so we can agree that "There is a town called Fucking in Austria, which is spelt the same way as an English word with a sexual meaning". Is that a fact? Yes. Should that be found in an encycloepdia? Sure, and as such we have an article on Fucking, Austria which makes that clear. However, an article containing a list of such facts would have other comparable facts, like "Oxford is a place name that dervies from Oxen and ford." Or "Dallas, Texas is a city in Texas named for the Vice President under James Polk". You can find facts such as this all over the place, does that make them interesting? Almost every place name has a story behind it; being interesting or unusual is much more difficult to qualify than a statement of the captial of Kansas. And using "Fucking Austria" for further examples probably isn't the best way to go. It is one of the least controversial entries, and I beieve it now has a source. I mentioned that one originally because people seemed to be using it to justify all the others, which I considered a flawed approach. I really think we're getting somewhere with the new article, and that should be the focus of our efforts. -R. fiend 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Unusual implies not usual. There are sites where you can find what place names are common or uncommon. There are likely a few places with place-names that are unique. (IOW no other place has that name) That makes the name unusual. If we undelete and then rename it to drop "interesting" this would take out any subjectiveness. Sarcoxie might not be especially interesting, but it is unusual. Unusual in that no other town has that exact name or in least so it claims. If that can be proven it'd fit. That's not subjective at all.--T. Anthony 13:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • So we're looking for unique now? Okay, then we've got real size problems. Again, I'll take out my atlas and look at the index. I've randomly opened to places starting with "Meng-". The following all have a single entry, making them likely to be unique: Meng, Mengabril, Mengalum, Menga,Pta, Mengara, Mengban, Mengchen, Meng-chiang, Mengcun Huizu Zizhixian, Mengdingjie, Mengene Dag, Mengeringhausen, Mengerskirchen, Menggala, Menghai, etc etc etc. And, reading down the list from the first I mentioned to the last, I only came across one name that was not unique (Mengen). Do we really want a list of every unique place name? i'll grant you that is the most non-subjective criterion I've heard yet, but it's also completely unmanagable. -R. fiend 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It could be unmanageable, but you can't judge it by flipping open an atlas. Atlases are bound to not list every little place that shares the name of some town. If need be though other standards of unusualness can be added. You can judge unusualness of words in certain ways and then apply that as an additional standard to place. For example words 21 or more letters long are deemed unusual enough that there is an article on Longest word in English. Few words in English have both "q" and "x", and so forth.--T. Anthony 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I still think "uniqueness" will be very difficult to establish. Is there more than one place called "Mengerskirchen"? Until proven otherwise, would we accept its inclusion? It's not all that weird or anything. We'd certainly have to get rid of places like "Sandwich" and "Bagdad". Your especially long name criterion is not a bad way to go, I guess, though even that is a bit arbitrary. Why 21 letters? Why not 18 or 23? Hell, even 11 is, I suppose "unusual" in that most places aren't that long. In any case, we're looking at less than 1% of the items in the list, perhaps, by that criterion. What about the rest of them? -R. fiend 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'd favor most of them being taken out. A good deal of it was a bit sophomoric. (For example "intercourse" can mean a kind of discussion, as I recall, and it's not that unusual a town name) As for why 21, it's the number of letters the name of a Hawaiian fish has. Also most of the words in the "longest words" article were over 20 letters which would be "21 or more." One letter names I think would also be unusual as would pallindromes. If limited to a few strict criteria I think it could be manageable.--T. Anthony 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It sounds like what you're proposing is an expansion of the new article (place names considered unusual), rather than restoration of the old article into the articlespace. Am I wrong? I think you make some good points. Feel free to make edits as you see fit to the new article; it really seems it's more to you're liking than the old one. -R. fiend 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I suppose so. Wikipedia is rather large it's hard to be aware of all of it.--T. Anthony 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, just {{sofixit}}. Until then, it should stay out of mainspace. I've deleted and protected the cross-namespace redirect and noted that at WP:ANI, while we're talking about it. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the decision about the article itself, this was uncalled for. All existing links from external sites, not to mention those on-wiki, take people to the old title; there should be an obvious way for them to get from there to where the long list is at present. Side discussion continued at AN/I. +sj + 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now redirected the original title to Astrokey's new article. Problem solved. -R. fiend 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in Wikispace and do not undelete in article space per FCYTravis. And perhaps some day, we might achieve a DRV with no daily "interesting place names" rehashing. Well, I can always dream... --W.marsh 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. agree with sp-kp. I was being bold and followed sp-kp's redlink and started an article with only those names that are referenced (currently only 5 at the moment) at Unusual place names -- Astrokey44|talk 03:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's looking about a thousand times better than the previous article (although the introduction is pretty stiff). Perhaps those carrying the banner of the "List of" article could instead help Astrokey on this much more worthwhiel endeavor. -R. fiend 04:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I think what Astrokey is doing is great. It should be done to the original article in place, however; even unto carving out huge sections of the article. But deleting and/or moving an article to a new namespace is just not the appropriate way to express an editorial opinion (like "this article needs a total rewrite!"). It is this misconstruction of process that we are voting on / discussing here. I am not carrying the banner of a particular version of the article; but it should be worked on where it has always been - or perhaps with a clarifying rename - and not in two places at once, as you seem to be suggesting. The extension to that would be, that any time you found an article you thought was POV, you could move it to a new namespace, delete, recreate, and protect the original title, and tell the authors to fix it at the new title and petition for it to be reinstated... +sj + 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no, moving an article to the WP namespace is not standard practice, and isn't intended to be. That was a compromise worked out after the article was already deleted from the mainspace. I consider it a decent compromise, as those editors who found it "interesting" can still get their chuckles, and it can be worked on without being the highly problematic article it was. The only real alternative I could see would be to simply remove all unsourced entries (which, at the time, was all of them, now it's all but maybe half a dozen or so). No one is saying you anyone can willy-nilly move any article they see as POV to the WP space, and that is not what happened here. -R. fiend 05:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was moved to WP namespace in the middle of the AfD debate and I moved it back. So that is exactly what happened here. SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it was moved during the AFD debate, moved back before the debate ended, deleted, and recreated in the WP space. The point is, no one is saying any article that someone thinks is POV can unilaterally be moved to the WP space, which seemed to be what Sj was worried about. He can rest easy now. -R. fiend 19:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted from the main articlespace for the reasons given both above and in the prior discussions. Even allowing it to remain in the Wikipedia space is problematic to me, but that's a compromise I can live with. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete this is blatant disregard for consensus that is already achieved here. The actions of R. fiend were absolutely inappropriate for an administrator.  Grue  10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete as per Grue. Could User:R. fiend please refrain from exercising his admin powers on this article again - the failure of process seems in part to be attributable to this amendment of the AfD discussion as well as other actions taken by R. fiend. His storong views mean that he is seemingly unable to follow due process. This AfD seemed to have been properly set up by userr:docu in line with the process outlined on this page at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Decisions to be reviewed, which read at the time: "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.". If the process is wringly described, it eeds to be amended. If not wringly described, why are views being sought again, why don't the previous recently expressed views on exactly the same topic count?--A Y Arktos 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per the consensus of opinion in the AfD to keep and the process problems noted above. Issues with respect to whether a particular entry should be added is part of the editing process for the article itself, not itself a justification for deletion of the article. Jtmichcock 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people are particularly drawn to the curse words and homophones that make it onto the list. I appreciate that these are offensive to some; but that is not the source of 'unusualness' for the majority of list entries. Useful sections of the page could be : "one- and two-letter place names", "numeric placenames", &c. We should be focusing on improving the criteria for inclusion on the page, not beating around the bush re: verifiability. +sj +
    • It's not the fact that they're offensive that grinds my gears. It's the fact that they are all sophomoric, not interesting or unusual. Is "Beaver, Pennsylvania" really "interesting or unusual?" Not really. It has sophomoric sexual connotations, but that's neither interesting nor unusual. It's just stupid. So a list that has no criteria nor sourcing will inevitably become simply a list of every place name a random teenager ever laughed at. Which will become a very long list indeed. FCYTravis 07:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion from articlespace, keep in projectspace as a resource for long enough to wring any useful content out of it, then delete. It's mostly junk, but there's probably some salvageable bits in here. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UT
  • I've actually not been paying attention to this article for some time. My attention was called to this debate by a message someone wrote me, which I received today after not logging into Wikipedia for over a month (I've generally been using it without logging in, lately, since I haven't been editing). That having been said, this is a good debate and some good points have been made. I agree that "interesting" and "unusual" are both subjective terms. The article had footnotes you could attach to the place name to indicate some reasons why people might find it "interesting" and/or "unusual," which I have tried to use. As to verifiability, for U.S. Place Names I have generally been using my trusty Rand McNally Road Atlas. I understand there is a movement on Wikipedia for people to cite their sources -- I think that is a good idea. With that taken into account, this article's encyclopedic qualities are questionable, however, the goal here is to have a comprehensive record of knowledge of all types. I credit this article with getting me interested in Wikipedia in the first place -- "Oh hey, they didn't put this town here, I can add it!" With respect to Native American town names -- I live in Massachusetts and I grew up on Long Island, so I am used to it, however, those from other areas of the country might not be. It is very POV-ish. I guess I agree with what was done to resolve the debate. Tckma 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/Restore to article namespace. Just add some of the missing references/contribute instead of deleting things one isn't interested in. -- User:Docu
    • That's what the new article is doing. Why not add the missing referneces there? -R. fiend 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because we would loose the list's edit history. -- User:Docu
        • the edit history is safely kept in the WP namespace. Not that it matters for lists like this anyway. It's not like adding the name of a location to a list is the sort of thing that needs attribution anyway. No one can hold the copyright to the words "Condom, France", wherever they may appear. -R. fiend 07:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This article is a relict from the times when it was unclear what wikipedia is. Since these times it grew into a monstrosity. Its replacement, Place names considered unusual evolves in a proper way. Quite a few lists are gone: lists of "You have two cows" jokes, various sezual slang, and many more. Let this one RIP in wikipedia space as a curiosity in wikihistory. mikka (t) 09:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted still as subjective as ever. --Doc ask? 10:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as per the last time. violet/riga (t) 12:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This protracted debate seems to be going nowhere. FWIW, I think the original list article should be in the article namespace WITHOUT all of the ridiculous tags indicating that citations are needed. WTF is that? Honestly, sometimes I think the tedious grinds around here have an agenda to remove all interesting content from Wikipedia and replace it with an unintelligible heap of footnotes. However, I can accept as a compromise keeping the article in Wikipedia namespace. In no case should it simply be deleted. older ? wiser 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the discussion above is going somewhere. I admit this "keep deleted, as before"/"undelete, good article" back and forth is not. We have a pretty good compromise worked out, in which the kitchen sink article stays in the WP namespace (it's not going to be deleted entirely) and a verifiable article stays in the article space. Is the article a little footnote heavy? Yeah. I'd probably prefer just one numbered external link at the end of each entry. But it is better than the anything goes of the other article. The attitiude there seems to be "well if someone added a place name then they must have found it interesting, therefore it is by definition interesting to someone." Circular arguments don't make for good encyclopedias. Nor does entirely subjective content. a List of some pretty cool shit might have some "interesting content" in it, but that's not an encyclopedia article. There are plenty of other sites around for that sort of thing. In any case, if the original article were moved back into the article space, the resulting content dispute would have it looking more like the new article anyway. -R. fiend 16:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quite agree that the original article contained a lot of dubious entries. But I don't see why that would preclude it from existing in article space. But as I said, I'm fine with the current compromise. older ? wiser 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure on the grounds of unencyclopedic. When I initially reviewed the AfD it looked like it was heading for consensus to delete, so I didn't contribute my opinion. Reviewing the AfD now, delete-voters point out article violated Wikipedia policies esp WP:V; Keep voters were asserting that the article was interesting, enjoyable to read, or worthwhile. Those points are uncontested; violation of Wikipedia policy must, however, take precedence in determining to delete the article. ikkyu2 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Clearly no consensus on the second AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Although I'd personally prefer it be limited to "unusual" and "interesting" be dropped. "Unusual" denotes rarity and I think rarity can be verified with a bit of work. "Interesting" is a bit more vague and open to interpretation.--T. Anthony 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm provisionally withdrawing due to the new article as I think it could become something verifiable and valuable. Although I also favor the original version surviving at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names.--T. Anthony 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rarity is (ironically) very common. Many thousands of place names are unique. See my further comments in response above. -R. fiend 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and keep the article, damn it — I can't believe R. fiend is getting away with this. R. fiend, please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, follow accepted Wikipedia policies and stop attempting to circumvent the consensus that you don't happen to like. — Timwi 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see once again user:Docu has tried to fix the outcome of this DRV by spamming everyone who might be tempted to vote "keep" and directing them here. Way to go. I suppose I'll have to go spam everyone who might be tempted to vote "keep deleted" or "keep redirected" or "keep in Wp namespace" or whatever. I really don't feel like doing it. are any of these people who appeared at the behest of messages on their talk pages going to add anything to the dialogue, maybe tell why the article in the WP space is so much better than the new one? Or are we just here to stuff a non-existent ballot box? -R. fiend 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Empty stubs or deleted articles are never better than lists. Why wouldn't you want the interested parties to participate?-- User:Docu
  • Opinion: The article is a bit woolly, but it's fun and there's nothing wrong with its existing. Nor is there any need to cite sources for every place name unless someone actually disputes their existence. I say delete the slew of "Citation needed" labels and put it abck where it was. 207.176.159.90 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Lists are, by their nature, not cited and nobody would regard inclusion in, or exclusion from, a list such as the one under discussion as being authoratitive. Its a list - not an article. Saga City 10:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What?! "Lists are, by their nature, not cited"? Where the hell did you get that? It's in the articlespace, it's held to the same standards as any other article, which means verifiablility. Lists are not immune from needing sources. Sure, "List of states in the United states of America" doesn't need a source because it's such universally available information, but this is different. Shoudl I create a List of crimes against humanity committed by George W, Bush without sources because "it's a list! Who needs sources?" If no one would give any authority to what's written in a wikipedia article, then we're all wasting our time here. Sure, the fact that anyone can edit it should make everyone especially skeptical about what they read here, but to have an article where we just come out and say "oh, don't take any of this seriously, it's just a bit of fun" is outrageous. There's a reason why Britannica doesn;t have articles like this. If they did they'd have to drop "encyclopedia" from their name. -R. fiend 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have to agree. I like working on lists, but they should have sources and rules.--T. Anthony 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I personally appreciate R. Fiend's work in this area. I had not heard about this before now, and after reading over the discussion, I agree with the proposed compromise. Regarding sourcing - yes, we need a source to show that each fact in an article is true; for any list, such as "List of X", each item has an implied fact "This item is a X", which, like any other fact, needs to be sourced. None of this should be controversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment . The old article had a nice broken-down list of ways in which a name might seem odd, funny or unusual. I think it made the article seem much more professional and encyclopedic overall, regardless of what the list actually contained. This element should be restored. LordAmeth 12:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article either in the main (article) or the Wikipedia namespace, or even the User namespace. — Instantnood 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Current tools available in Wikipedia do not allow to maintain such type of articles reliably. If the infrastructure of Wikipedia significantly improves (something I didn't notice during last two years) such article may be maintainable. Today such article is very likely to turn quickly into chaos. Pavel Vozenilek 12:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in Wikipedia space, out of article space: If verifiability is always going to be a problem (and the subjective, POV terminology will cause that to be the case), then we really should take it away from the articles. I'm well known for being no fan of lists, but the reason I'm against them is that they take information that should generate contexts and put that information into an inherently anti-contextual index. Encyclopedias do not index -- atlases and trivia books index -- at least as articles. If we were forced to write about Fucking, Austria (and we have an article on it), then we have something to say about it other than noting that one aspect of it can be combined with the same aspect of wholly disparate places. However, in this case, the list is simply too inviting of sniggering editors and nonsensical additions. If we have not upheld the standards of verification and NPOV with other articles, that's no excuse for not upholding them here, and, indeed, the bright red lights shining from the mast of this article are a reason for upholding the proper standards especially here. This is not about deleting the ancient article's content, but about keeping it at a non-article spot. I agree with that. Geogre 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

undelete: 2000 edits over the course of years underscores the great interest in the article, though a fair amount of work on guidelines and parsing into English and other languages would probably help. Ombudsman 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete per Grue, Sjakkalle. Kappa 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and restore to article namespace. My eventualist tendencies make me think that this article will grow and evolve into one of our finer lists in the article space. youngamerican (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. —Nightstallion (?) 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and restore I will completely reiterate my comments from a prior unsuccessful nomination:
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).
Moreover, IMO, the insistence of few to repeatedly nix this list despite consensus otherwise should be dealt with through some sort of disciplinary action. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to vote on this, please at least read the discussion (yes, I know it's very long) there is a version of this article that cites sources (Place names considered unusual the other title now redirects there). Someone nominated it for deletion, but if everyone who voted to undelete this by all accounts flawed article instead voted to keep that one, there's no chance it would be deleted. Go ahead an add Swastika to that article, if you can find a source for it. And also keep in mind that this entire "vote" (if that's what it is) has been tainted by User:Docu spamming everyone and their mother who might want to vote to keep this (just like he did with the 2nd AFD). An admin should know better. If the article is undeleted, it's going to look like Place names considered unusual anyway, once the unverified entries are removed. -R. fiend 17:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully read all discussions regarding this topic and, frankly, it's getting pedantic. And my assertion/"vote" (a spade is a spade) to undelete the incipient article, in addition to the many others before and since who have also commented and despite the contrary, hasn't changed. The revamped article is a shell of the former, and (if anything) the original one should be systematically retrofitted with those notions, not restarted anew as has since occurred. As for administrator actions or impropriety, which I can neither confirm nor deny, those so compelled should take it up at WP:AN. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the *original* article, merge all these other ones into it, immediately move any unsourced entries to the talk page, put a notice on it that unsourced entries will be removed, and monitor it for such additions. Semi-protect it if necessary. Who can have a problem with that? Turnstep 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To my way of thinking, there are four issues at hand here. I'm going to express my opinion on all four of them right here.
  1. Endorse closure of 2nd AfD. Requests for undeletion appear here at DRV, not at AfD.
  2. Endorse closure of 1st AfD. Process was followed and rough consensus achieved.
  3. Endorse result of 1st DRV. Process was followed and rough consensus achieved.
  4. Leave article deleted, at least in main namespace. The interest or unusual nature of place names fails Wikipedia:Verifiability; compiling the list itself is original research. There's now an article in main namespace, Place names considered unusual that attempts to reproduce this article in a Wikipedia-policy-compliant way, by removing the unverifiable assertion 'interesting' and sourcing each assertion of unusualness for each place name. That article follows Wikipedia policy; the article under consideration does not. Further, no compelling argument can be made for not merging the contents of the old article into the new article, following Wikipedia policies WP:V WP:NOR while doing so.
I hope that was clear. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of expressed opinions how did you assess "Endorse result of 1st DRV: Process was followed and rough consensus achieved." ? -- User:Docu
  • Undelete and restore per Haukur. I am putting it on my watchlist to guard against it being used for pointmaking and vandalism, and am willing to block for repeated disruption, if that occurs, but I hope it will not. Jonathunder 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I was shocked to find this missing (and of course, all the more confusing with the short-history short article currently at the old location. I'm breathing a great sigh of relieve that this is still available somewhere (even if in the Wikipedia namespace). There are many many problems with drafting such a page, and its authoritativeness is of course questionable, but it is an extremely valuable resource, and there are many verifiable placenames (probably the majority) which would be generally accepted as in some way unusual.
I don't even want to know what madness resulted in the current situation - this is certainly the most outrageous deletion shenanigan that has affected me. zoney ♣ talk 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close with status quo. Right now the original list, with its concerns re WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:CRUFT, WP:BIAS and WP:NFT is in project space where none of these issues matter much. There is a new article at Place names considered unusual which is at least trying to get round those problems and present something close to an encyclopaedia article on the subject. Since nobody has been able to cite a source for Fucking, Austria being considered unusual in its native language (to name but one issue) I suggest we leave as-is and get on with something a bit more productive. Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see this closed by an administrator who has not expressed an opinion in any of the debates. I would like that administrator to review all the debates, in particular the views expressed at the first DRV discussion which can be viewed at this version of the debate just before it was closed the last time. A Y Arktos 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take that on, but first I need to verify that I didn't participate in either (any?) of the AFD's. This is one; are there more? android79 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Particularly in light of the present controversy over userboxes, specifically their use in finding like-minded individuals in an effort to sway a vote/discussion, I do think it bears repeating that User:Docu added a link to this discussion to many user's talkpages (I gave up counting how many after more than 20), and only to users he considered like to vote to keep/undelete. So anyone looking at numbers alone should do so with a sceptical eye. -R. fiend 20:48, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names_(2nd)&oldid=1143732030"