Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City network

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City network[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and full of WP:OR. Most of the main Google results are unrelated to this concept, and looking through Google Scholar I don't see any papers that support the term as defined in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak delete - In its present state the article isn't really encyclopedia for the reasons King of Hearts mentions, and the concept is too vaguely defined to state much about whether a well-referenced article is even possible. Nonetheless, I do find some mention of the concept, especially Capello 2000. There are more hits for the idea of "world city network", mostly from Peter Taylor (e.g. [1][2]). The concept of interaction between cities is a serious area of academic study, but I can't say this article is describing that. I !vote delete, but without prejudice for recreation if someone takes this same title in a more scholarly direction. MarginalCost (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source - it's clear this is an academic geographic definition, especially in the context of "world city networks." [3]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the current content unsalvageable, in the sense that it would take more effort to find a supporting source for each statement present (if it is even possible at all - some of the content may have just been dreamt up by its author) than to take one or two scholarly articles and just write an article from scratch based on that. In its current state it is misleading to readers who would be better served with no article instead. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I would need access to the articles in order to source the article so I haven't done it myself, but I think it could be referenced easily. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Ajf773 (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable as entire books are written about it - a selection follows. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:PRESERVE; WP:ATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:BEFORE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis
Cities, Networks, and Global Environmental Governance
International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities
Mexico City in the network of global cities
Commodity Chains and World Cities
City Branding and New Media
The Creative Capital of Cities

Keep The basic premise of this article is that cities are nodes in transport and communication networks and this defines the purpose and development of the the city. This seems quite self-evident to me, and that it is not OR has been well demonstrated by AndrewD's list of sources. To add to that there is A Study on Globalizing Cities: Theoretical Frameworks and China's Modes, particularly chapter 3 which treats the idea in great detail. Clearly meets WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any specific examples of possible OR from those that are making that claim. Until they do, their argument is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or vague handwaving. SpinningSpark 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comments: Not notable concept or idea. I change the unreferenced tag as there is "one" provided. I am all for scholarly subjects on Wikipedia but there needs to be more than a "basic premise" and providing a list (above) written and/or co-written largely by Peter J. Taylor (Department of Geography, Loughborough University) and R. Aranya (Department of Urban Design and Planning ,Trondheim, produced by "Regional Studies" where authors can publish their own work. Other co-authors are B Derudder, F. Witlox, G. Cataland, M Hoyler, and J Huang. These authors repeatedly show up in books printed by Taylor and Francis Group (a part of Informa where authors publish their own work) Urban Research and Practice (the same), and Routledge; part of Taylor and Francis Group. This should raise big red flags that the title is nothing more than neologism. The sources I looked at, including those I could find above and other links (using 13 tabs and following many links) also included "national urban networks", "transportation and communication networks", "trade and finance networks", "intercity networks", "Mississippi and Great Lakes networks", "capacity network", and "infrastructure networks", All of these appear to be considered "nodes" or partitions. A "city network" per the article is also a "node". As far as a geographic definition there is confusion as to what "City network" actually means, as well as what it is part of, considering the other network "nodes". The term network in this context seems to fit many more instances from sources including "city-networks", "city-as-actor networks", "city-as-spaces networks", religious networks, city-regional networks, as well as the above mentioned "world city network", that does have more mention. A minor network can be a "canal network" that is allowing invasive fish to travel from the Mississippi to the Great Lakes. There would also be city to city networks, city to other country networks, and more.

As far as the topic being "quite notable" I do not find that since sources are largely primary, self-published, and questionable, with vagueness and passing mention. We require reliable third-party independent sources. To me, there is too much confusion for the subject to receive an article. Add to this the content "Some urban thinkers have argued..," is unsourced and immediately begs a ^[who?] tag as well as content, "It has been argued that city networks...", and this does present the appearance of original research since I couldn't find them in sources. I followed Mexico City in the Network of Global Cities (link above) and found "network of global cities" but couldn't tie that as related to "city network". The same with City Branding and New Media that discusses "city branding" but nothing tying that to the subject without using synthesis.

Apparently anything dealing with a city, including the city, and most things material and immaterial, form the nodes or partitions (far more than just transport and communication networks), so actually defining (and sourcing) the literal term is maybe close to impossible? Otr500 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Routledge and Taylor & Francis are questionable publishers? First I've heard of it. If those books can't be treated as scholarly RS, we might as well throw out book sources altogether across Wikipedia. But as it happens, the book I've offered in my post above not published by either of those, and the author does not appear in your rather long list of people you want to rule out. SpinningSpark 20:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.