Talk:entrance to Sea Gate

entrance to Sea Gate
Since the translation gets zero Google hits, this isn't valid. I'm assuming the translation(s) would have to meet CFI too. If not, errr. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget the translations, this is SoP through and through - I mean the definition for the "entrance to Sea Gate" = the "entrance to Sea Gate" for Christ sake. Delete with speed. ---&gt; Tooironic 12:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * pwnt with a swiftness. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To point something out, "Place names, that is, names of geographic entities, are subject to the criteria for inclusion specified in the section "General rule", extended with the following additional requirements" (from CFI as of today's date). So this would qualify for deletion as "sum of parts" as would, debatably, New York, New York. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)