Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-land

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. kur ykh 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-land

Delete Previously prodded, prod removed. Article is a list of places that end with -land. This groups articles together by an arbitrary distinction; that is, that contain in them a Germanic cognate. Wikipedia is not only not a dictionary, but we would certainly not expect the French Wikipedia to have a list article on "-terre", which serves much the same purpose. (England (originally Angleland) and l'Angleterre for "land of the Angles"). The article -stan has the same problem, but should be nominated separately depending on the outcome of this discussion. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 06:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Or Move per Baileypalblue below. I feel it is dubious whether or not this serves as a useful list; however, if the community sees a place for List of place names ending in -land, it is definitely preferable to -land as it stands. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable intersection of Category:Toponymy and a suffix. The list also doesn't seem to really know what it's about. The lead paragraph states that the list is of "place names", but there are Countries, States and Islands mixed in with Places (see Place (United States Census Bureau) for the definition I'm assuming is meant). Then suddenly we're offered some geographical terms and a link to a surname. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an international encyclopedia Place (United States Census Bureau) is probably not the correct source for a controlling definition of "place name". Baileypalblue (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced that article because it matches my understanding of "place name" from my New Zealand perspective. It also seems to match the UK definition, but that isn't as easy to reference as it's a passing reference on the place disambiguation page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maker's comment: I just want to say that the article was created with the -stan (and other articles in the Category:Suffixes, like -ovo/-evo) that you aforementioned in mind. I would say that the order of deletion process should be in terms of which article was created first, in this case, I only agree that -land should not become a Wikipedia article if the article that it inspired from - -stan - could not stand to the trial. But I would not contest any further since I realized this is a totally different ball play from my home Wikipedia. What would you say CaveatLector, if the list is separated into several segment, and that article only for disambiguation: [[List of places in <country name> with "-land" suffix]]? Bennylin (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still not sure what encyclopedic purpose this would serve. Does the collection of places names that end with the word -land (which is not a suffix, anymore than -ball is a suffix in sports) provide a pragmatic or interesting piece of information? In fact, I have the same generic problem with most of the articles in Category:Suffixes. Not the least because WP is not a dictionary. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral I'm not sure we can judge what fr.wikipedia will consider worthy of inclusion at some point, besides, that is irrelevant to what we on en.wikipedia decide to include. I agree that as a list this article isn't really working, as it's scope is very wide. Lack of focus is not a good reason to delete though, as that can be changed and criteria tightened up. Places called X Island should not be included, for instance. The article might work if it wasn't a list but instead a proper toponymical article, however it might need a little more time to be developed into that and an expert may be required. Perhaps consider userfying if Bennylin wants time to work this into something more encyclopedic. (nb. The Oxford Dictionary of British Place Names says 'land' is of Old Scandinavian origin</pedant>) sassf (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Can I, as the article starter, modify that article, even though it's currently under deletion nomination or do I have to wait for the result? I just want to improve it based on the discussion above (and possibly below), without, of course, removing the delete tag. Bennylin (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can work on the article to improve it at any time. sassf (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some advantages to a reverse lookup, where the items are arranged by a common suffix. For obvious reasons, normal alphabetical order (which would distinguish between Fort Payne and Fort Pierce, or New Britain and New Brunswick) doesn't work for that purpose. Based on that, I think it's a legitimate topic that might require a different name. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reverse look-up point is interesting, but wouldn't it take forever to make that useful? Wouldn't you have to do it with all endings, including those pointing to smaller units such as regions and towns and neighborhoods? (-shire, -wich, wick, -ton, -town, etc.). Plus, I'm not sure I see what could possibly be useful about reading such a list. I think this is just impossibly confounded as an encyclopedia article, but I'm not saying 'delete' just yet, because I haven't formulated my thoughts on lists yet. Jlg4104 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list could be organized better, and have some more discriminating information, but if a person was trying to figure out the difference between Nordland, Ørland and Hordaland in Norway, this could be a better navigation tool. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of place names ending in -land per naming conventions in WP:LIST. The rationale identified by User: Mandsford satisfies the purposes of lists criteria mentioned in WP:LIST, particularly Navigation and Development. Similar lists like -stan need similar page moves; -land, -stan, etc. would be reserved for articles about -land, -stan etc. which are probably not notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an organizational device. That';s enough of a justification for lists like this. The suggestion made above by Jlg4104 that this be done for other name elements is a very good one. It doesn't take forever to get started, as we improve articles gradually. This is an ongoing project. DGG (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information. Ending in "land" is not a meaningful category for research or organizational purposes - it's no more helpful than List of cities that end in ington. (Washington, Arlington, Wilmington, etc) This sounds like a category from SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy - colors that end in "urple". --B (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. Based on the above discussion here's what I did: I moved the article in question (-land) to -land (disambiguation) along with its deletion tag (I don't know if that's proper or not, please correct me if it's not), and wrote a stub that might be merged to Land in -land. The disambiguation could be further divided into several articles

List of place names in Norway ending in -land
List of place names in Denmark ending in -land
List of place names in Sweden ending in -land
List of place names in Finland ending in -land
List of place names in Germany ending in -land
List of place names in Holland ending in -land
List of place names in Poland ending in -land
List of place names in the USA ending in -land
and so forth, while the remaining -lands left in that page. Further comment are appreciated. Bennylin (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm correcting you -- it's not proper. I'm sure that you meant well, but unless you're the closing administrator, you can't really decide for all of the participants based on your own interpretation of the discussion. Changing a title is okay during a debate, but erasing the old article beyond reversion is not. Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now I see the havoc that I created. Hopefully an admin could delete the current -land and move -land (disambiguation) back to -land. Bennylin (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 18 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.