Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most remote substantially populated cities

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most remote substantially populated cities[edit]

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

The article is original research and includes no inline references. We have a similar list as part of the Extreme points of Earth article, which does include some sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An arbitrary list that fails WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new article and there appears to have been no tagging of problems at the article, and there is no discussion at its Talk page (Talk:List of the most remote substantially populated cities, ~~currently a red-link~~ since started by me). There is citation of Guiness book of world records in the article. All the information may be from there, and it may not be primary research at all. And, non-controversial facts don't all need to be supported by references, if they have not been challenged, and no distance given or any other fact in the article has been challenged. Sure, try to educate some about need for references, and add some tags. But, geez, people, help the newbies out a bit, and don't hit them with an AFD when not necessary! (I didn't check to see if the original contributor is a newbie, but whether they are or not, my view is pretty much the same, don't hassle imperfect contributors unnecessarily). --doncram 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sympathy for the newbies is no reason to keep an article, nor is an AfD a sign of hostility towards them. The list makes non-trivial claims (the Guinness book is almost certainly not the main source) and includes OR from start to finish. I can't verify the accuracy of the claims (and I shouldn't have to, that's why we have WP:CITE), and as a member of WP:ZA I know that Johannesburg for example is not the city closest to Cape Town (what about Port Elizabeth or George or Stellenbosch?).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those cities have populations well below 1 million, the threshold stated clearly in the article. Stellenbosch's size is just 77,000! And, we'll have to agree to disagree, about an AFD being hostile or not. --doncram 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this arbitrary threshold of 1 million is to be taken seriously, then both Cape Town and Johannesburg would have to be removed from the list, given that the population of the cities (as opposed to the metropolitan areas) don't quite reach that figure. About AfDs being somehow 'hostile', there is nothing to discuss: they have been part of Wikipedia since the very beginning and no matter what you think of them they are a core part of the project.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Obviously the Guiness source of facts for this article uses the metropolitan area sizes, not the arbitrary city borders within the physical cities. And, yes, Wikipedia has long had this feature, which is necessary I suppose but in implementation is often/usually very unfriendly, particularly when wp:BEFORE is not carried out. Isn't all this sourced from Guinness book of world records? --do ncr am 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Follow your own suggestion and read WP:BEFORE, especially this part: "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)". As I have already said, the Guinness book is almost certainly not the main source of the tables, you should be able to confirm that by just reading the article, so it counts as original research and should be deleted. Do you have any policy-based reason for wanting to keep it, other than deletion might offend someone's sensibility?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The nomination is for stated reason "The article is original research and includes no inline references". I don't believe it is original research, it is referenced to Guinness (and no facts have been disputed, anyhow). And, so what about inline vs. end-of-article referencing. Sure, tag it to call for inline referencing. There is no policy-based reason for deleting it. It is interesting and useful and sourced and valid as a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The Guinness book is not the source of the article's data, which is therefore the product of original research. I challenge you to prove that this is not the case.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it is worth, i went to a public library yesterday and checked its collection of Guinness books. It had several editions, including i think 2001, 2004, 2005, and the various editions differed in what they covered about cities. 2004 had a most remote-from-any-ocean city mentioned (some city in western china), the others before and after did not have that. Also it turns out that one can search online for various Guinness records at http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/. Although it is possible this material is covered in an edition that I did not find, I didn't find the material covered. I still like the material, think it is factual and interesting and useful, akin to List of enclaves and exclaves, but I must admit that it does not seem to be sourced where I thought it was sourced. --do ncr am 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above naysayers. It's pretty arbitrary, and includes a grab bag of other trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about one section being not related, and removed it to Talk page. Does the argument against come down to assertion that Guiness does not provide the info? Can someone check that? --do ncr am 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is poorly sourced original research Secret ^account 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and arbitrary. The author credits Travelmath.com in the references, all but confirming the OR hypothesis. The distance from capital table is arbitrary; the choice of 1e6 population is arbitrary; and the inclusion of some cities which don't meet the population criteria is very arbitrary. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are arbitrary cutoffs in many lists of largest, most significant, etc., objects. E.g. minimal size of objects are arbitrary in most/all lists within Category:Lists of largest buildings and structures. I don't see that as a problem, and I think the million cutoff is a fine one, and also the use of metropolitan size rather than city boundaries (which often have enclaves and exclaves, see List of enclaves and exclaves which I think is kind of similar. I rather believe all the information presented is accurate and factual. I would rather this was tagged for sources and revisited in 6 months time; your view may vary. There has been no tagging at all. --do ncr am 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false analogy. A list of tallest buildings might have a cut off where the list ends, but it's not trying to derive arbitrary relationships between those buildings. There's no evidence that 1e6 population is a widely accepted definition for "substantially populated". Pburka (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2014 (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.