Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of metonyms

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 no consensus. It definitely needs work, but there's no consensus to delete it. Fences&Windows 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of metonyms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's like a list of metaphors - it is endless. I do not believe such a list is useful - there are 1000s of metonyms and everyone can make 1000s more. A few more prominent examples in metonymy should suffice. Renata (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made it to clean up the crud bucket list on Metonymy.--Louiedog (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that might be the case. I would have boldly deleted the excess. Renata (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Louiedog, but a list of metonyms is potentially endless. The list actually begins by stating that it's a list of common metonyms – so why doesn't the article title make that distinction? Even if it did, I would still support deletion at this point, because the entire article appears to be unreferenced original research. If you can find references indicating that the metonyms on this list are, in fact, more common than others, I may reconsider. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be easily be sourced, and limited to only those instances where a place name is used to reflect an entire organization. The original concept was a grafitti wall for just about anything that popped into one's mind (i.e., "a microwave" can mean "a microwave oven"), and it's going to be taken for granted that any nation's capital (Washington, Moscow, London) is going to be a metaphor for that nation's government. On the other hand, some are less obvious ("Madison Avenue", "Fleet Street", "Red Square"). Not voting a keep, because this one has been an ethereal concept from the start, and a "do over" (metonym for something that should be started over) would be in order. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if this perhaps sets me apart from most, but I've found the list very, very useful when writing. In fact, I'm on a temporary diversion from writing one right now, as I went to consult the list (just to double-check what "Whitehall" represents, and was dismayed to see AfD status. I agree that it could easily get unwieldy, but I think with careful policing and removal of the more obscure listings, this could remain a valuable resource. --Grahamdubya (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was a bit sceptical but I think this list is useful. I think this would be difficult to police, but I think it is worth keeping, though how it relates to Wiki policy on lists I don't know DRosin (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just re-reading A Stop at Willoughby's comment, I agree that sourcing would be good on this article DRosin (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree that the list of place-government metonyms should be heavily trimmed or summarized, but for everything else I think this article is useful. Reinderien^{talk/contribs} 02:23, 10 December 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.