Angus wrote:
Hallelujah! Notability is a set of crufty guideline and no more. "When you wonder what should or should not be in [wikipedia], ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an *encyclopedia*."
Now I haven't seen a print Britannica in years, but as I remember it there were one (or more) gazetteer volumes, page after page of places with coordinates... I'd expect a non-paper encyclopedia to have a bloody huge list of places, inhabited or otherwise possibly of use to readers.
Just so. We should remember that "notability", and our attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is: utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like, but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is, "Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find this information?