Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city nicknames in the United States


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

List of city nicknames in the United States
This article is a list of loosely associated topics (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), many of the entries appear to be original research, and it sadly fails to meet the verifiability policy. Any nicknames for a city can be placed in the city's article, where they can be properly referenced and reviewed by editors familiar with the city. In practice, it is impossible to maintain this article up to Wikipedia standards.  Dalbury ( Talk )  11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep All of the nominator's arguments are wrong imo. It is not indiscrimate because it is restricted to nicknames of cities in the United States. That's a pretty clear set of parameters. I totally fail to see the relevance of the point about original research; any of these names must be widely known so many people could have added them without doing research and many are also given in many secondary sources. If both of these ways of sourcing information are prohibited every single wikipedia article will have to be deleted. The claim that it is not verifiable is patently false. If there are some that are not verifiable remove them as errors, otherwise read the articles about google to discover how easily facts can be checked on the internet. Finally the article is edited almost everyday, and many different contributors have participated, so prospects for continuing improvement are excellent as it isn't just one person's random idea. ReeseM 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read What Wikipedia is not, No original research and Verifiability, which are official policies of Wikipedia. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, a better recommendation would be to read Citing sources. Despite the assertion above that these nicknames are given in secondary sources, not a single one of them is accompanied by a citation in the article.  Indeed, there are only two or three sources cited in the article at all (one of which is a source cited to disprove an element of the article).  It would not be unreasonable for editors to come along and remove almost the entire content of the article and require that nothing be re-added unless a source was cited for it.  This has happened to other lists.  I strongly recommend that the authors of the article begin citing sources for each nickname immediately in order to prevent this.  Uncle G 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You misread all the policies. The vote is overwhelmingly on my side. ReeseM 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as ReeseM. Skyscrap27 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Interesting list, but probably needs some attribution, etc B.ellis 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've read the policies and IMO this violates none of them, plus it's interesting in its own right. 23skidoo 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This List of City Nicknames is so interesting, alot of them are right and some of them are wrong. I would hate to see the article on List of City Nicknames get deleted. It would be very sad to see that happen. JeffreyAllen1975 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's right on target with the city nicknames I know, including the caveat that natives never call San Francisco "Frisco."  Could use better sourcing, but on the whole an above average Wikipedia list. Durova 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominator should review Wikipedia policies about reversions and deletions. I noticed he or she removed several recent additions to Florida including the Jax for Jacksonville: I've reinstated that with the obvious link to the city's international airport code. Durova 21:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you also notice that 'Jax' was just one of three nicknames I reverted, none of which had any citation? Dalbury ( Talk ) ''' 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * you'd have been lax to do anything else! :) BL   kiss the lizard  00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If everyone took your extreme hardline, Wikipedia would never have got off the ground. What matters is whether information is true or not. ReeseM 00:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent use of the list format. -- JJay 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. And I disagree about airport codes -- they aren't often used, but they're pretty well established where they are used. Around New England PVD seems to be pretty universally understood as shorthand for Providence. Haikupoet 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This was a completely unacceptable nomination for afd. The nominator should have his/her editing powers suspended.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with some of the other posters that this probably needs some work, but several of these are well known (at least regionally).Rt66lt 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Very useful and encyclopedic list. Of course WP:NOR and other WP policies are applicable here, and that means improve, not delete. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 04:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep older&ne;wiser 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Verifiable place nicknames are a valuable and legitimate entry, and this is a good use of the list format with strong and narrow parameters, and I can easily see this as a reference source for many Wiki users. Nhprman 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. nothing is invented in this article. all the information exists. it is just being brought together under one list. it is NOT original research. according to wikipedia, original research is "novel narrative or historical interpretation". that's not what this is. Kingturtle 09:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as noted above.--Mitsukai 18:49, 11 January 2006 (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.