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. Tone 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Methinks not. Completely subjective and not list-worthy. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused by your use of "list-worthy" - the article isn't a list. Can you expand on your meaning? SP-KP (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I read it as 'list of...' rather than 'interest in..' (not quite sure why, my brain seems to be having an off day. Or year). Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My brain has those too. Could you perhaps include a replacement deletion reason based on your revised understanding (assuming you still feel this should be deleted)? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--alright Ironholds, this was difficult...not. It actually doesn't even list "interests," as the title promises. Listcruft without a list. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment to Ironholds - this isn't a list (not sure why you thought it was intended to be?), but an attempt to document the phenomenon described in the title. SP-KP (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list--a list of interests. All it's lacking is the word 'list' and the actual list. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a list - it's lacking ... the actual list". That made me laugh out loud :-) That has to be the most brazen AfD argument I've ever read ("this article isn't deletionwortthy but let's argue that it's something else which is deletionworthy, so that then we can delete it"). Brilliant!! SP-KP (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But, I didn't say it was a good list. In fact, it is a bad list--to the point where it actually wasn't a list. I did not practice sleight of hand--I tried to read the article for what it really was, despite the name (which is decidedly unencyclopedic). Drmies (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as complete WP:OR, with the topic probably also failing notabnility guidelines. More a subject of scholarly research than an encyclopaedic article. – Toon^(talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If we can establish that there are reliable secondary sources covering this phenomenon, would I be correct in thinking you'd change your vote to keep? SP-KP (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if you can demonstrate that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources, and reference the article accordingly, I'll take another look. :) – Toon^(talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I can do that. Citing reviews of books on "unusual names" would seem like an obvious way of doing this - any thoughts on that suggestion? SP-KP (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem with that would be that those names themselves would really be the subjects of the books... In order to be notable, the actual topic of "Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual" - the interest would need to have been subject to lots of research etc. E.g. Why people are interested, and so forth, would have to be covered by reliable sources. I'm not sure that such coverage has actually occurred, to be honest. – Toon^(talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood my suggestion; the book on the names would, I agree, just be a primary source that the interest exists, but a book review would be a secondary source - I don't know if that helps make it clearer? SP-KP (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but see the subject of the review would be the book, i.e. how it is written etc., and not qualify as coverage of the topic, do you see? It's a subtle difference, but "Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual" wouldn't be discussed as a topic, and the source wouldn't be authoritative upon such a subject. – Toon^(talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, I think. In order to qualify as coverage of the interest, the book review needs to explicitly state that the book demonstrates that the author is interested in the topic he's writing about, and that people are likely to want to buy it because they are interested in it. If it doesn't explicitly state that, and we just assume, from the existence of the book and/or review that interest must exist, it's OR on our part - in other words, the book could have been written for some other reason than that the author is interested in its topic, or because people may buy it because they're interested in the topic. Is that an accurate summary of your thinking? SP-KP (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite. A book review wouldn't really be any use here; it's sole aim would be critiquing the book. If there was a news article titled: "The growth in Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual" in which people's Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual was discussed; this is the kind of source we need. Similarly, if there was a good number of scholarly sources discussing the "Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual", that would go some way to demonstrate notability. – Toon^(talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. Let me just check I've understood you. You're saying that in order for something to be inclusion-worthy, there needs to be an field of study whose subject is the article's subject itself (either solely or as part of a group of things studied), and that the practitioners of that study need to have published material on the subject itself. As a general principle, in your view, does the field of study need to be an academic field of study or could other forms of study qualify? SP-KP (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, mostly. It doesn't necessarily have to be academic; if the topic has been the subject of a good few news reports, or similar, it can satisfy this notability guideline too. – Toon^(talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's good - thanks for taking the trouble to explain all that. I'll add my vote below. SP-KP (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Article is completely unencyclopedic, and, barring a miracle, will never be worth keeping. Oh and... wow. Just wow. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete For having little or no content. As far as I can see, it's just a group of paragraph headings with expand tags. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I think you're quoting SD criterion 3? This states "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." which doesn't appear to apply to this article as it contains non-trivial information outside of those definitions. Could you take a look at this definition, and let me know if you agree? SP-KP (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A3 wouldn't readily apply here. There is content and is definitely not close to being a linkfarm. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See the discussion above with Toon. SP-KP (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article may be more acceptable if it were more focussed; there are plenty of sources for isntance concerning rude place names (I was reading an article on the BBC web site only a few days ago about people moving out of a street called Butt Hole Road, for instance), and I'm sure an appropriate article could be built about these. But putting unusual place names in the same article seems to be a case of synthesis. I see nothing to link the two together. Also, I'm not sure what the point of 'interest in' in the title is. My feeling is that the article is more about people's reaction to such place names. So perhaps "Reactions to place names that may be considered rude" (for example) would stand a better chance of being an appropriate article. JulesH (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as original research. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual (2nd nomination), the results of which some folk seem unwilling to accept. (The first article is still being maintained somewhere in userspace, and the "interest in" in this article's title seems an awkward echo of the "interesting" in its title.) This article has the same flaw as those—the concept of "unusual" is inherently subjective: unless there are sources defining and commenting on "unusualness" or "amusingness" as they apply to place names, the article is WP:OR. Deor (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material per the previous AFDs listed above. It may be an attempt to shirk the deletion process by recreating as another, even though it's possible that it's not the case. In any event, consensus has already shown that this content is not desired by the community per the related AFDs. MuZemike (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the author put the article up way too early. For a well-sourced list on a similar topic, see List of unusual personal names and use that as a model. Generally, this type of list only works if it adheres to encyclopedic standards, and citations are expected for individual entries. Ideally, one should not rely on only one source for an entire list (i.e., repeating every entry in a book). Mandsford (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as synthesis. Also, what's next — Interest in place names which are only considered amusing or unusual every once in a while? Stifle (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trash. JuJube (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense —Chris! _ct 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cheap attempt to re-insert material already deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.