Deletion of List of short place names

Comment: per Mandsford and Colonel Warden. "Unencyclopedic" |means nothing unless it is backed up by policy. The list for sure requires better inclusion criteria and some sourcing, but not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYC)

Comment: The nomination does not have a leg to stand on:  "''unencyclopedic''" is just begging the question and the reference to  is inappropriate as lists of this sort are specifically exempted.  The topics are evidently notable - see the book http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=orVJS-KHMIiUyASeu5SJDg&cd=9&id=ovsbAQAAIAAJ&dq=short+place+names&q=short+place+names#search_anchor Limits of language, for example.  And there has been no attempt to engage with the topics by discussion at their talk pages which is contrary to our |deletion process
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: And fix inclusion criteria to have longest/shortest place name by country, with , of course
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Non-encyclopedic" is just another word for "|I don't like it."  If a comprehensive, online encyclopedia is not the place for a list of one-and two-lettered real places, then I don't know what is.  Places are inherently notable, and non-random lists of such would thus be |notable.  The nomination neither cites |direct policy, nor explains logically why it should be eliminated.  This is precisely the sort of thing our core constituency, students at high school and college, would need here, and is |commonly kept here by consensus.  '''Not sure''' about the second list, which is subjective
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:N||WP:5P||WP:OUTCOMES)