Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities in the Americas with alternative names

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, although the "list" is in need of some massive cleanup as noted. Marking as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the Americas with alternative names[edit]

Article is full of WP:OR and WP:SYN. I see no way to fix the article to avoid that, so I have to conclude that Wikipedia is not the place for this. —BradV 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to WP:SYN "serving to advance a position" : what position do you think this article is serving ?
Why don't you list for deletion Names of European cities in different languages ? This unbalanced treatment between American cities and European cities seems questionable. Teofilo talk 06:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Names of European cities in different languages, there are a list of sources at the bottom of the page which indicates where all the information comes from. The fact that there are no third-party sources publishing a list of cities in the Americas with alternate names means that this entire article is original research and is not verifiable according to our policies. —BradV 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't most major cities have different names in other languages? Even so, this list is overflowing with original research, synthesis, red links, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going on delete. This appears to be largely the names of cities in other languages, nothing more. Honestly, I'd expect something more than what's here other than the non-english names of cities (maybe some perjorative names, like "Garbage Grove" for Garden Grove, California) - but that wouldn't save this. Basicaly, what the Hammer said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. —BradV 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge With Names of European cities in different languages: A, and so on B, C D E F G H I J K l M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, removing "European" from the title, so that all cities of the world receive a similar treatment. If you delete this, you have to delete the whole series of toponymic lists : List of countries and capitals in native languages, Names of Asian cities in different languages, Names of European cities in different languages, List of alternative country names, List of country names in various languages. Teofilo talk 06:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting something else, but this list is mainly just the names of the cities in other languages. Redundant. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most of these look like transliterations of city names into other languages, not actual alternate names. A few of these look like they might be alternate names, though, so this can probably be saved with some heavy editing. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the topic. I like the organization. And WP:ILIKEIT points out that those are not reasons to keep an article. Yes, it's interesting, and I'm saving it to my hard-drive, but it has a long way to go before it can be encylopedic. The former names of cities, as well as Americas Indian names for the locations, are encylopedic, although sources should be cited in a bibliography. The foreign versions of the names are a tougher matter. Transliteration of foreign writing is a mixed bag. As a kid, I thought it was neat that my hometown of Lexington, KY, was "Rekishingtong" in Japanese katakana. Things like "Rubrobastum" as Latin for Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are purely for fun, since Caesar never visited there. "Angelopolis" for L.A. is more silly than fun, since "-polis" is a Greek suffix, not Latin. When you get to "Didacopolis" for San Diego, it goes beyond silly to insulting to the reader's intelligence.

Finally, variations like Bogotá, Bogota, Bogotà, and Bógóta for the capital of Colombia are unnecessary. I can't bring myself to vote delete, because I think this can be transformed from "fun to read" to "encyclopedic and fun to read"; on the other hand, I can't vote for keep in its present form. Good idea for a topic, needs a more disciplined execution to work as an article. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mandsford, given your rationale, if it still existed, I'd almost say that BJAODN would be a good home for it. Almost. =^^= That said, your thought: is "split" a good !vote for this? Obviously there's encyclopedic information in here, but it's better placed in each city's article, IMNSHO. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of comparative tables, if for no other reason than to spare a reader from having to look over individual articles. Plus, it makes more sense to make a table, than to edit all those articles. However, a reference table has to be accurate without question. The "Latin names" make me want to choke ("polis" can be a Latin suffix as well, I guess, as with Neapolis for Naples), and variations based on placement of accent marks are distracting as well. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Requires reliable sources before being encyclopedic content. Luk suh 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like this are helpful & appropriate for encyclopedias. Apparently needs some editing.DGG (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the crufty indiscriminate nature of most lists, this one is actually useful. Worth keeping. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really fail to see how a list of this nature is in any way encyclopaedic. It would be better to simply mention any pertinent native translations for certain city names in the lead for each article (such as in Cardiff or Munich), but only where these are in common everyday use in that area. Bettia ^(talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this should be edited similar to the European one with sources.Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (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.