740:
scholarly book on name origins, but it is, after all, ad copy. The U. Kentucky one is at least entirely on the subject, but again, the work in question seems to be a piece for amusement. That's really the basic issue here: none of the works in question is trying to produce an authoritative list of such names, but most instead are presuming interest in the names and talking about why they got them. Maryland has its share of amusing placenames too: my favorite is
744:, where I took a picture of my wife standing in front of the sign for the Boring United Methodist Church. Presumably I might be able to hunt around and find a book or webpage on that, and add Maryland to the list. And that's really the biggest problem: the article is using the existence of the books and pages as evidence for claims about the relative peculiarity of the names in different places. That's not only
31:
646:
The neutrality of this article is a non-existent issue. The notability and verifiability of the subject have been established. Unless you're going to begin questioning the neutrality and/or reliability of the cited sources I can't see that there's really anything else left to discuss. We don't delete
206:
This is too vague of a criteria and can never be globalized. Considered unusual by
Americans? Africans? Brits? Aussies? Yes, it is sourced (more sources than actual article) but that doesn't fix the premise. It has to be OR in the sense that the "by who" is in the eye of the beholder. Words
739:
Reference to "reliable sources" as a justification is focusing entirely on the name of the publishers and not at all on the type of material. The BBC page is comments from the equivalent of a blog. The Irish page is from a travel site. The U. Calgary page is an ad for a (one presumes) reasonably
520:
Good point by the nominator that the criteria for inclusion seem quite odd; but as long as sources prove that certain names or places are found notable, there's no reason that we have to object to them. If the long list of See Alsos were gone, would we find this problematic?
503:. Well-written article with abundant (11 - count 'em) cited sources, and a further 10 external links - all of which confirm that the subject is verifiable, notable and a matter of recurring interest throughout the world. Perfectly ludicrous nomination. --
661:
Have you looked at the sources? Most failed wp:rs, book sales sites, etc. The Amish
Country News? (Amish publish websites?) And to establish "what is unusual", that is a globalization and nuetrality issue, as I have already explained way above.
122:
117:
112:
574:
The nomination doesn't mention neutrality as an issue and the suggestion that there is a POV problem seems far-fetched as the article contains numerous sources which separately and independently confirm that we have a genuine topic.
647:
articles about political parties or world leaders because they cite biased party political sources - and this instance is one step further removed even than that, as none of the cited sources in this article are primary sources. --
207:
mean different things to different people in different areas. As an example: In North
Carolina, "shagging" is a type of dance they do to beach music. In the UK, well, it ain't dancing. We both speak English.
783:. Any place name can be considered unusual by some person or another, and just because an article is written on it in a newspaper doesn't mean a compilation of all these NPOV assertations merits an article.
107:
368:
The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it
613:
What about the issue of neutrality, or the inability to ever globalize the article due to the vague and poorly named subject? That these issues weren't raised by the nom is meaningless, according to
183:
552:
None of you three have addressed the points argued above. You've addressed notability and verifiability, and skipped over the point being addressed by the preceding editors:
301:
has been through as many as five deletions depending on your count is beyond me. There was a problem with that old article, but linking to maps could have easily fixed it.
150:
145:
154:
137:
617:, as they were legitimately raised in the discussion. Sources alone don't fix neutrality, as it is easy to write a one sided article and source it quite well.
40:
538:. The topic itself is notable enough to have sources: it's not a random-collection/listcruft of notable things gathered by some arbitrary Wikipedians' ideas.
809:
792:
761:
734:
712:
686:
656:
641:
605:
584:
565:
547:
530:
512:
493:
460:
417:
400:
379:
353:
317:
281:
252:
231:
197:
90:
190:
Seems like synthesis to me. What defines an unusual place name? Frankly, I think that this is original research and probably very hard to fix.
695:
looked at the sources - which include the BBC, The
University of Calgary Press and an official publication of the US Antarctic Program. The
469:
are you saying it meets? Otherwise, you can't speedy it. Also, since this is the 2nd AFD, I don't think a speedy is a good idea anyway.
721:
being subjective or making judgements or analysis (or selective quoting and similar "only part of the story" bias). WP:NPOV specifically
141:
681:
636:
488:
436:
that someone, somewhere, thinks that there's something odd about a particular placename, it's still going to end up as an unmitigated
343:
226:
553:
17:
842:
333:, as said above, there is no way that this could ever be neutral objective and factual, since the basis of the entire article is a
748:, it's an invalid method. This article is trying to construct something out of a bunch of works which, it seems to me, consider
133:
96:
800:
not really notable gives only five examples which are probable not unusual to the residents or locals so really is opinion.
294:
longer, but a couple of years ago the entire list section was deleted and this article has been a skeleton ever since. Why
391:, subjective from the get-go. Citing is no good in this case as the authority of the citations would also be subjective.
295:
261:
824:
65:
46:
313:
823:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
601:
580:
375:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
788:
677:
632:
484:
348:
222:
444:
805:
396:
277:
269:
717:"What is unusual" is "what a cited RS says is unusual". It may be subjective, but WP's rules are about
427:
708:
652:
508:
413:
86:
699:
has been published quarterly for nearly 20 years and has an annual circulation of 500,000. Perhaps
597:
576:
371:
191:
243:. Entirely based on a singular point of view which cannot be made neutral, factual, or objective.
784:
432:
This by its nature is going to violate at least two of the Big Three, and while I suppose we can
248:
663:
618:
561:
526:
470:
338:
208:
77:. Consensus to delete is clear. The existence of a similar list in Knowledge (XXG) space is
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
780:
437:
363:
801:
757:
741:
730:
543:
456:
392:
273:
265:
614:
466:
448:
440:
334:
330:
240:
78:
704:
648:
504:
409:
82:
745:
433:
836:
244:
557:
522:
171:
753:
726:
539:
452:
305:
725:
appear to promote inclusion of "X says Y about Z" or "Z is Y" content.
123:
Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual (4th nomination)
118:
Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual (3rd nomination)
113:
Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual (2nd nomination)
817:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
260:
as per nom. A much more comprehensive listing is available at
25:
703:
should try looking at the sources a little more closely. --
596:
The article is well-sourced and does not seem to be OR.
299:
178:
167:
163:
159:
108:
Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
827:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
349:
339:
239:Classic example of what Knowledge (XXG) is
344:
296:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual_Articles#Places
262:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual_Articles#Places
105:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
779:per above, plus a clear violation of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
103:
81:since NPOV is not an issue there.
24:
41:deletion review on 2009 April 17
29:
664:
619:
471:
303:
209:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
272:) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
134:Place names considered unusual
97:Place names considered unusual
1:
762:11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
752:to be collections of trivia.
735:06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
91:08:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
810:13:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
793:09:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
713:15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
687:12:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
657:04:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
642:00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
606:23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
585:23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
566:21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
556:. How do you address that?
548:21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
531:21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
513:19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
494:17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
461:15:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
418:13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
401:08:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
380:23:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
354:06:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
318:02:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
282:05:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
253:02:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
232:01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
198:01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
859:
843:Pages at deletion review
820:Please do not modify it.
298:is allowed to exist but
290:This article used to be
61:Please do not modify it.
691:As a matter of fact I
102:AfDs for this article:
408:Unusual to...whom?
73:The result was
697:Amish Country News
196:and his otters •
685:
672:
668:
640:
627:
623:
492:
479:
475:
230:
217:
213:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
850:
822:
742:Boring, Maryland
675:
673:
670:
666:
630:
628:
625:
621:
482:
480:
477:
473:
465:Which policy of
351:
346:
341:
309:
220:
218:
215:
211:
194:
193:Ten Pound Hammer
181:
175:
157:
63:
33:
32:
26:
858:
857:
853:
852:
851:
849:
848:
847:
833:
832:
831:
825:deletion review
818:
316:
192:
177:
148:
132:
129:
127:
100:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
856:
854:
846:
845:
835:
834:
830:
829:
813:
812:
795:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
715:
598:Colonel Warden
590:
589:
588:
587:
577:Colonel Warden
569:
568:
550:
533:
515:
498:
497:
496:
423:Can't we just
420:
403:
385:
384:
383:
382:
372:Colonel Warden
357:
356:
323:
322:
321:
320:
312:
285:
284:
255:
234:
188:
187:
128:
126:
125:
120:
115:
110:
104:
101:
99:
94:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
855:
844:
841:
840:
838:
828:
826:
821:
815:
814:
811:
807:
803:
799:
796:
794:
790:
786:
785:Themfromspace
782:
778:
775:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
683:
679:
674:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
638:
634:
629:
616:
612:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
532:
528:
524:
519:
516:
514:
510:
506:
502:
499:
495:
490:
486:
481:
468:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
435:
431:
429:
426:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:
386:
381:
377:
373:
370:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
352:
347:
342:
336:
335:point of view
332:
328:
327:Strong Delete
325:
324:
319:
315:
314:Contributions
310:
308:
307:
300:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
233:
228:
224:
219:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
185:
180:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:
106:
98:
95:
93:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
819:
816:
797:
776:
749:
722:
718:
700:
696:
692:
610:
593:
535:
517:
500:
445:WP:LISTCRUFT
424:
422:
405:
388:
367:
326:
304:
302:
291:
257:
236:
203:
189:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
802:MilborneOne
501:Strong keep
393:WillOakland
362:Please see
274:Synchronism
266:Synchronism
750:themselves
719:WP editors
705:Gene_poole
649:Gene_poole
554:neutrality
505:Gene_poole
410:Ecoleetage
292:much, much
83:Eluchil404
79:irrelevent
451:, I say.
837:Category
611:Question
443:list of
428:SNOWBALL
350:andahalf
245:RayAYang
184:View log
781:WP:NPOV
558:Uncle G
523:Nyttend
438:WP:NPOV
364:WP:NPOV
329:as per
151:protect
146:history
798:Delete
777:Delete
754:Mangoe
727:DMacks
615:WP:AFD
540:DMacks
467:WP:CSD
453:Mangoe
449:WP:NOT
441:WP:NOR
434:verify
425:speedy
406:Delete
389:Delete
369:"POV".
331:WP:NOT
258:Delete
237:Delete
204:Delete
179:delete
155:delete
75:Delete
746:WP:OR
667:ENNIS
622:ENNIS
474:ENNIS
430:this?
212:ENNIS
182:) – (
172:views
164:watch
160:links
16:<
806:talk
789:talk
758:talk
731:talk
723:does
709:talk
693:have
671:ROWN
653:talk
626:ROWN
602:talk
594:Keep
581:talk
562:talk
544:talk
536:Keep
527:talk
518:Keep
509:talk
478:ROWN
457:talk
414:talk
397:talk
376:talk
306:Soap
278:talk
270:talk
249:talk
216:ROWN
168:logs
142:talk
138:edit
87:talk
701:you
680:) (
635:) (
487:) (
340:Pip
337:. ~
241:not
225:) (
839::
808:)
791:)
760:)
733:)
711:)
655:)
604:)
583:)
564:)
546:)
529:)
511:)
459:)
447:.
416:)
399:)
378:)
366::
280:)
251:)
170:|
166:|
162:|
158:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
89:)
43:.
804:(
787:(
756:(
729:(
707:(
684:)
682:C
678:T
676:(
669:B
665:D
651:(
639:)
637:C
633:T
631:(
624:B
620:D
600:(
579:(
560:(
542:(
525:(
507:(
491:)
489:C
485:T
483:(
476:B
472:D
455:(
412:(
395:(
374:(
345:2
311:/
276:(
268:(
264:.
247:(
229:)
227:C
223:T
221:(
214:B
210:D
186:)
176:(
174:)
136:(
85:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.