Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city nicknames


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of city nicknames

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article fails to maintain a NPOV proclaiming many, many places as the x capital of the world without referencing. Todd661 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) COMMENT Keep in mind
 * indiscriminate information
 * WP:OR.
 * When something is so blantant is giving a POV we cannot wait for a reference to be included. If I was to put into the article that "George W. Bush is the best President the USA has ever had" it would be deleted straight away, and so it should be! Here, it is EXACTLY THE SAME. Todd661 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - provided someone clears up the neutrality issues, I don't see any reason this article needs to be deleted. ZBrannigan 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate information. Probably able to be refererenced but still just purposeless information - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a real phenomenon, and certainly can be referenced. (There's a 1965 book "Nicknames of Cities and States of the United States" which could be cited here, and could at least double the length of the article.) But just because somebody got something into print once doesn't make the article any less an indiscriminate collection. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the cite: Kane, Joseph Nathan and Alexander, Gerard L. "Nicknames of Cities and States of the U.S. New York and London, The Scarecrow Press 1965. LC 65-13550. 341pp.  -- BPMullins | Talk 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep but clean up. Temporary NPOV problems are not a reason to delete an article... just needs some referencing and other work. --W.marsh 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. At first I was tempted to say keep, but I have to agree with the nominator in saying that the POV problems are pretty widespread and would require massive amounts of sourcing to counteract that.  Even if someone were to do the footwork, compiling a list of nicknames that have effectively been used in some reputable publication is still an indiscriminate list.  Besides, if I were interested in finding alternative nicknames for, say, Chicago, Illinois, I'd expect to find that information in the city's article rather than in a list.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; the sourcing problem can be easily remedied. Article deletion should be reserved for articles that are unredeemable, not merely bad in their current form. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nicknames for each individual city should go into the article for that city, not in a big huge list.  This list (and List of city nicknames in the United States in particular) is poorly sourced and vulnerable to people putting in their own definitions.  Since when is Circle Pines, Minnesota the "Unsigned Rappers Capital", anyway?  I thought it was just a quiet little suburb.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is somewhat of a WP:IAR vote. With a listing like, "Alfalfa capital of the world - Cozad, Nebraska", how can we not keep it? :)  Unfortunately, it would take a monumental effort to find sources for all these claims, but the fundamental idea of having such a list is fine with me. YechielMan 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all unsourced nicknames from the article. Finding sources for the currently unsourced contents would be an unreasonably huge task, but the article itself is not inherently POV. EALacey 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments. Epbr123 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, so like lots of our articles, it's unsourced, go source it not delete it. Carlossuarez46 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The artilce was potentical. But needs work with sourcing.--Bryson 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourcing something of this size would be nearly impossible. Smacks of much OR. Realkyhick 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - Sourcing something of this size is a large task, but impossible? Hardly. In fact, there are several sources to draw on that could act as citations for many of the entries. Once the vast majority of it is sourced, the unsourced entries could be deleted, to be re-added if someone finds a citation. After that, it's easy to tell if any given edit is reasonable on the basis of its sources. I'm actually planning to do something very much like this in a massive overhaul of List of tequila brands. -Harmil 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but please require sourcing for each and every item in the list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments. - Axver 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to develop in proper encyclopedic fashion.  — Athænara   ✉  20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.