457:
is not a valid keep reason. If this article can be expanded to show notability of the term and properly sourced, fine. Otherwise, all we have is a stub about a field definition in a database used by a US government agency (and after the most recent expansion—a synthesized hodgepodge of barely related
314:
Explanations of terminology
Knowledge uses do not belong in the article space, though. At the very least, this definition should be moved to WP space (which effectively means deletion), and even then consensus needs to be established that the USGN definition is
299:
Since the expression "populated place" is used on WP, including on a couple of categories on this article, having an article explaining what it is is probably useful. "Not a dictionary" is often ignored in cases like this.
487:
That's not really background; that's where I noticed that the "populated place" article is disturbingly substandard to the point of being a dictdef and asked why. If we only keep it around because it is "useful", that's
156:
339:, since I use it in the articles I write about places, to contrast it with a "locale" which is pretty much just a name attached to a piece of nowhere, but it's not a good AfD argument. I did
508:, article is not so warm now but just does fog the mirror. If the term were not used authoritatively off-wiki, it should be a dead letter, but alas WP hasn't invented this term.
343:
showing that the term is used generally in the field of cartography. I'm looking for more information about the various uses of the term, but much of what I found is in obscure
470:
209:
438:
Used throughout this
English language WP. Pointy deletion based dislike of the usage of the term regarding Russia. Result of special pleading to make Russia an exception.
150:
117:
319:
one
Knowledge standardizes on (which I am not so sure is the case). And what other cases where the "not a dictionary" guideline is intentionally ignored do you mean?—
417:, ..., and a whole bunch of other areas I can't even think of right now. Although its a bit limited at the moment to the American definitions of what constitute a
238:
347:
works and they're a bit too scholarly for my brain to handle today. I think there is more information out there, though if it still ends up being merely a
195:. Re-writing this stub from scratch is not impossible, but in six years no one ever tried to, and it certainly isn't worth keeping in its present state.—
381:
59:
90:
85:
94:
380:
and the article gives a nice overview about the contents of that category. Additionally the term is a feature class defined by the
77:
188:
17:
171:
138:
191:
database purposes. It is most certainly not the only possible definition, is not notable by itself, and is a borderline
532:
478:
389:
377:
132:
36:
531:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
513:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
517:
482:
447:
430:
393:
368:
309:
289:
259:
230:
128:
305:
54:
471:
Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19#Category:Set indices on
Russian inhabited localities
280:
250:
221:
178:
474:
385:
81:
509:
364:
164:
356:
51:
301:
271:
192:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
144:
493:
463:
454:
443:
426:
348:
336:
324:
275:
245:
216:
200:
73:
65:
355:, however, can actually address many aspects of a term beyond its definition. Note that
360:
284:
254:
225:
111:
489:
459:
439:
422:
402:
320:
196:
421:
place, it should be possible to broaden it to a world view fairly easily.
414:
352:
410:
452:
I see good faith is just overflowing with this one!</sarcasm: -->
274:
categories seem weird. I really had no idea where to put this one.
525:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
406:
344:
453:
Anyway, as
Valfontis above rightfully pointed out, being
187:
This stub is nothing more than a definition used for the
401:
The term forms an important distinction in the areas of
359:
is not usually considered a valid reason for deletion.
340:
107:
103:
99:
163:
210:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
535:). No further edits should be made to this page.
490:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
460:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
335:I wish I could simply argue that the term is
321:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
197:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
177:
8:
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
208:Note: This debate has been included in the
239:list of People-related deletion discussions
236:
207:
351:then deletion might make sense. Some
7:
24:
357:six years of not being expanded
189:United States Geological Survey
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
466:); July 21, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)
458:factoids). How's that a keep?—
203:); July 19, 2011; 18:46 (UTC)
1:
496:); July 22, 2011; 14:49 (UTC)
327:); July 19, 2011; 20:12 (UTC)
552:
376:. Heavily used in WP, see
518:03:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
483:13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
448:02:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
431:12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
394:10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
378:Category:Populated places
369:20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
310:19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
290:18:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
260:18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
231:18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
60:01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
528:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
384:a scientific agency.
44:The result was
288:
262:
258:
242:
233:
229:
213:
543:
530:
282:
252:
243:
223:
214:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
551:
550:
546:
545:
544:
542:
541:
540:
539:
533:deletion review
526:
475:Bogdan Nagachop
386:Bogdan Nagachop
124:
88:
74:Populated place
72:
69:
66:Populated place
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
549:
547:
538:
537:
521:
520:
510:Carlossuarez46
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
469:Background at
433:
396:
371:
330:
329:
328:
293:
292:
264:
263:
234:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
548:
536:
534:
529:
523:
522:
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
495:
491:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
465:
461:
456:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
326:
322:
318:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
298:
295:
294:
291:
286:
283:(note: not a
281:
279:
278:
273:
270:Sorry if the
269:
266:
265:
261:
256:
253:(note: not a
251:
249:
248:
240:
235:
232:
227:
224:(note: not a
222:
220:
219:
211:
206:
205:
204:
202:
198:
194:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
527:
524:
505:
435:
418:
398:
373:
332:
316:
302:Steve Dufour
296:
277:I, Jethrobot
276:
267:
247:I, Jethrobot
246:
218:I, Jethrobot
217:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
50:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
403:Cartography
151:free images
419:populated
361:Valfontis
341:add a bit
415:Planning
118:View log
488:wrong.—
353:dicdefs
333:Comment
272:DelSort
268:Comment
193:dictdef
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
48:. --
455:useful
440:Hmains
423:Haruth
411:Census
349:dicdef
337:useful
129:Google
95:delete
52:Lear's
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
514:talk
506:Keep
479:talk
444:talk
436:keep
427:talk
399:Keep
390:talk
382:USGS
374:Keep
365:talk
306:talk
297:Keep
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
55:Fool
46:keep
494:yo?
492:• (
464:yo?
462:• (
407:GIS
345:GIS
325:yo?
323:• (
317:the
285:bot
255:bot
226:bot
201:yo?
199:• (
179:TWL
116:– (
516:)
481:)
473:.
446:)
429:)
413:,
409:,
405:,
392:)
367:)
308:)
287:!)
257:!)
244:—
241:.
228:!)
215:—
212:.
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
512:(
477:(
442:(
425:(
388:(
363:(
304:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.