Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
A river in Russia. Doesn't meet CFI without attributive use. DCDuringTALK 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep. An attributive use example: the Kuban Cossacks. Let's vote for changing the CFI. It has been discussed so many times. It's a multi-language dictionary, the current rules will only allow to include place names known to English speakers. --Anatoli 11:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As the examples of attributive use for proper nouns show at WT:CFI and its linked pages show, that case is irrelevant for CFI of Proper nouns that require attributive use. This is not a forum for voting in any event, until questions of the acceptability of the three attributive-use citations arises. Perhaps Kuban Cossacks merits an entry, like Irish Americans. DCDuringTALK 15:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Added a citation, entry restored. --Anatoli 10:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
O.K., but we require multiple citations, and that they be of attributive use in a widely understood sense. —RuakhTALK 01:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You are really discouraging me from staying here, Ruakh. I am not prepared to fight for every entry I create. I have some linguistic background, I don't have the skills for searching for citations.
"Kuban Cossacks" (attributive usage) is an ethnicity, if not for English speakers, it IS so so for Slavic language speakers. As ethnicity, Kuban Cossack songs, Kuban Cosack dance are further examples. I gave an example in Kuban talk page. I've seen many just proper name entries with just one citation, please tell me, are you picking on Russian proper names or on me, as an editor? The Kuban is not only the river but the region, colloquially used for Krasnodar krai. A Kubaner would be a person from that region.
I can't help but feel it's personal. The new vote on CFI is not complete yet, could you at least wait, when it's complete before you started deleting my entries? Please! --Anatoli 01:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Striking. The attributive use requirement no longer applies. (Technically this hasn't been cited even to the point of the regular attestation standard, but I don't feel the need to press the issue. If there's anyone who thinks that either or both senses genuinely might not meet that standard, please feel free to re-RFV it/them.) —RuakhTALK 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)