Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city nicknames (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Delete ^ demon [omg plz] 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List of city nicknames
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article's last AfD closed as no consensus. The keep arguments stated that this article could have its lack of sourcing fixed, but nobody ever fixed it, it just stayed as it was in violation of NPOV. It still claims that places are "Capital of " without any sourcing at all, frankly I think much of it is made up titles, colloquial titles and self granted titles. This fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and most of all WP:NOT. This is not an encyclopedic subject but list with very little content per entry. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. ( H ) 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced and original research with plenty of time given to address the issues. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, this is useless trivia that may or may not be mentioned already in most of the cities' respective articles. It's unsourced anyway. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, original research, clearly falls under WP:NOT... shoulda been deleted the last time around.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Due the characteristics of the information presented, we can't cite sources references." That sentence right there shows that this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Delete. (messedrocker • talk) 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but apply chainsaw. Contrary to the sentence noted above, portions of the list are referenced, and probably many other portions could easily be. -- Visviva 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after this article is treated with much chainsaw, it would be as if a person is ridded of all their body parts except part of their left hand. Would the article be worth keeping? (messedrocker • talk) 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. For the proper way to include a list of city nicknames in Wikipedia, see Nicknames of Houston. --Evb-wiki 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn that's a good article. (messedrocker • talk) 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really impressed with that article. Natalie 06:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It shows that the claim "the nature of the info does not allow for sources" does not hold water. Even nicknames can be sourced, and it's not encyclopedic if it doesn't provide context. There were a few proposals that could not be sourced; they were simply not included. --Evb-wiki 12:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information, which is what Wikipedia is not. Sean William @ 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the "keeps" in the last AFD were on the condition that this article was improved by adding sources for every example. That hasn't happened, and this list has been tagged for lack of sources since November 2006. Masaruemoto 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it's indiscriminate - I think this is the kind of list people some people would find useful (if in a trivial way). I don't think two months (since the previous AFD) is enough time to give it to be cleaned - I think the size of it is probably intimidating to editors. Maybe chainsaw it after six months or so.  Citi Cat  04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two months is long enough to bring it up to featured article, nobody even made an effort. Most of it is not even citable by its very nature. ( H )  04:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom due to verifiability issues, article serves as nothing more than a trivia magnet attracting fly-by-night editors. Broken beyond repair. RFerreira 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is waving a red flag at us to see how we react. It taunts us with " look, this fails WP:V, but please keep me!" Getouttahere. It has to go. Ohconfucius 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - an article can only be kept so many times on the argument that it just needs to be cleaned up. This hasn't happened, after four tries.  --Haemo 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others. If it hasn't been fixed yet, it won't be. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nice chainsaw! -- Visviva 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete A rather useless article, which cannot be allowed to stay here. It isn't fit for wikipedia, it just isn't. -)-(-H- (&#124;-&#124;) -O-)-(- 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep outside the context of WP:BLP, articles are to be deleted due to lack of sourcing only if no sourcing is likely to be found. That's not the case here. There are lots of articles that are unsourced since ..., but they aren't deleted. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about the WP:NOT issues? ( H )  16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per H. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The list should be pared down; five nicknames for Gary, Indiana are four more than we need to know. But a city's nickname is usually a matter of pride for its residents, especially a name with a long tradition.  The nicknames are often an alternate way of referring to a location: if you run across "The Big Apple" or "Gotham" out of context, it's good to know what's referred to.  Finally, this list is working at a global perspective.  I don't know if the residents of Jakarta or Buenos Aires have another name for their city, but articles outside of en:Wikipedia might yield that information.  It never hurts to learn a little bit more about the rest of the planet.  My ONLY misgiving is that lists like these are open to vandalism.  Mandsford 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep No need to delete it now that it has been chainsawed to only include referenced information. The current version is a good starting point to rebuild the page properly, and editors who do want to make the effort to look for sources can still find the old set of nicknames in the page history. Anyone who originally voted to delete should reconsider as it is a completely different article now compared to when the vote started. Easel3 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing my vote... the list is and will always remain a target for random useless trivia, as such the list really is not worth keeping. Certain nicknames can and should be placed in the articles on the cities themselves.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, individual nicknames can be redirects to their city, if more than one city shares the nickname, make a disambiguation page. This type of "index" while informatative is not encyclopedic in nature. ( H )  21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment City nicknames are a worthwhile and interesting topic, and I believe it's a topic that does belong in Wikipedia (regardless of whether it's a target for vandalism or useless edits, which many worthwhile pages are). Whether you agree with that statement or not, that issue has not been the main focus of this AfD and I don't think there is concensus here to delete the article for that reason. The main thrust of the opening paragraph above was about the lack of sourcing used, the NPOV violations etc, and the fact that nobody ever fixed it. Most of the delete votes have used that argument as well, with many implying that the article has had enough chances to have the unverified facts cleaned out and that it will probably never happen. Since then, RFerreira did a great job of doing just that, completely changing the situation. With respect, I think this AfD has already achieved its correct outcome by deleting the 90% of the article that most people had a problem with, and I think the fair thing to do now would be to withdraw the nomination. I can't see a clear indication that the remaining 10% on its own deserves or would have received a delete vote. Easel3 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see a lot of people that object on the grounds of WP:NOT. ( H )  14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but there are also many who don't. Currently I count 5 votes to keep and 13 to delete (in other words, 4 delete votes changing to keep would make it even). Of those 13, four either explicitly mention WP:NOT or use words to that effect. Six others use arguments relating only to sources or verifiability or the fact that it has taken too much time to be dealt with, without explicitly endorsing your arguments per nom. The other three don't mention WP:NOT but do say 'per nom' or similar, however one of these three predicts that the page will not be fixed, and another demonstrates that articles about city nicknames can exist on Wikipedia, although in another form. Altogether, I wouldn't say there's a consensus that WP:NOT applies. Easel3 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming I'm the editor to whom you refer who "demonstrates that articles about city nicknames can exist on Wikipedia, although in another form." E.g., Nicknames of Houston. And this is true. Nevertheless, to clarify, it's not so much the ability to provide a source for each item listed that shapes my opinion, but rather the fact this list is not encyclopedic because it does not provide sufficient context. IMO, lists worth keeping provide textual context indicating the similarities, differences and connection the listed items have (i.e., they are not mere lists). In the list being discussed, we have items simply listed without texual explanation as to the connection (and mostly without real info about the item itself). Of course, the only connection these items have to each other is identified in the article's title. Therefore, even the chainsawed version fails WP:NOT in my book. --Evb-wiki 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I was referring to you before (and I do want to make it clear that I wasn't meaning to represent or reinterpret anyone else's opinion with my summary, just trying to make a case that the article deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than the deletion it is heading for, considering the recent major changes and a comparison with arguments made before those changes). I certainly agree that the list would be far better if each nickname was provided with an explanation of its background, and that the article currently is nowhere near as good as the excellent Houston article. But I would still say that it is a list that is well worth having a Wikipedia article about, and so it does not fail WP:NOT imo. It definitely needs a lot of improvement but I think it can be rescued from its current state without needing to be deleted. So I would still argue that this AfD should be marked as 'no consensus' and the new, shorter article allowed a chance to rebuild and be judged on its own merits after a few weeks. Easel3 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the entries on the list are sourced, no matter how many tags and templates at the top of the page say otherwise. (The article is not in great shape, but with most of the entries sourced I see no breach of WP:V or WP:NOR) Several city nicknames are well-known (e.g. New York = Big Apple) and information of this sort does have some lexicological interest. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:25, 16 June 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.