Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places named for their units of production


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

List of places named for their units of production
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary list, and in any case wrongly named as "units of production" is not the same as "main products". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes this list any less worthwhile than anything else in Category:Lists of placename etymologies? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Week Keep. I changed title toList of places named for the main products. ( A unit of production is a barrel of oil, not oil.) A reasonable set of things, useful for browsing, which is sufficient reason for a list. DGG (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is now called List of places named for their main products. Kingturtle (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Many people enjoy lists, and lists of common things can develop some very interesting information. When I started List of persons considered father or mother of a field 4 years ago, it slowly developed into a very interesting article (at least interesting to a number of people). Rather than delete the article, please give it time to grow. Although it may not be your cup of tea, it is of interest to others. Kingturtle (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Cute, and it doesn't seem likely to become too long or crazy. Ray (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Ray (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:INTERESTING is not a reason to keep a page. WP:CUTE doesn't exist. An article "Places named after their main products" which described the sociological and/or historical relevance of such namings would have a place. This list is arbitrary. The items on the list are known better for being places than for this incidental secondary characteristic.


 * WP:SALAT .Does this article contribute anything to knowledge? No. It's just "quirky".

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unnecessary nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not an indiscriminate, indefinite, subjective list. The article being about a niche-interest or somewhat trivial subject is not a reason to delete. Each name can be verified as a product produced by the community and sourced. SMSpivey (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Toponymy is encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (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.