Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)

After 1 year of being proposed, what is the conclusion?

Since this article was marked as a proposal, when it was first created a year ago, there seems to have been no consensus on this article. Since editors don't like the {{failed}} or {{historical}} tag, I suggest the same tag as is being used on Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). travb (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The dormant tag is acceptable, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"editors don't like" what they don't like, so what? It failed, and should be marked failed. NVO (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the editors at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), I was just proposing something which wouldn't cause edit wars. travb (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a lack of consensus is the same thing as dormant. Failed proposals should be marked failed. Crickel (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue of notability is still and ongoing debate, given the latest Rfp debate on spinouts, inherent notability, etc. That's one reason why there has been no movement at this or any of the other subject specific notability articles. I would argue that the matter is dormant, since as of yet there is no WP-wide consensus dealing with subject-specific notability.DCmacnut<> 03:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

Occurring at WP:VPP#New level of geographical notability.3F. Constructive discussion is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 10:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A draft proposal is being prepared at Wikipedia:Notability (geography). G. C. Hood (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)