Appendix talk:Place names/Greater Manchester

Weird that this was deleted. I don't want to bring back old discussions, but this is one of the official major subdivisions of a country... odd--Keene 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one would question its notability... I think the broader question (for this and many other placenames) is whether there is information that we can provide about it that Wikipedia cannot. But the discussion on the underlying issue (viz., what should our CFI be for placenames) never really came to a satisfactory resolution. -- Visviva 11:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: March–September 2016

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Appendix:Place names/Greater Manchester

This doesn't seem to be a good place for this. Especially as we have an entry for Greater Manchester. AK and PK (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, Appendix:Place names/Telford and Wrekin and Appendix:Place names/Usa are similar cases. AK and PK (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd say the whole of Appendix:Place names can go. We do allow place names in the main namespace, after all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • These don't make a lot of sense as a) they usually meet CFI and b) where they don't they will be difficult to find as they're in an appendix. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Delete as of no use. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete: redundant to mainspace entry. Equinox ◑ 12:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)