Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaohsiung metropolitan area


 * 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaohsiung metropolitan area

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article (as well as the six other related ones to be listed below) was about an official statistical area of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The definitions have since been abolished, and there is no reason to believe that the area will remain statistically or otherwise significant as an entity, since they were artificial definitions to start with. (The only possible exception relates to the Taipei-Keelung area, which I admit is a bit more fleshed out, but the information in whose article has been adequately dealt with in Taipei, New Taipei, and Keelung anyway.) Delete all (mild delete as to Taipei-Keelung) Nlu (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also proposing the following related pages for deletion:

Related template proposed for deletion (separately, at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 21):
 * Keep - I see no reason why these are different than Los Angeles metropolitan area, New York metropolitan area and London commuter belt. Just because they are no longer official government designations, as those examples aren't, it doesn't mean they are not practical and common ones for business, commerce, real estate, transportation and many other uses.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But in the case of Los Angeles and New York, there are official definitions. (Los Angeles/Orange Counties, and 23 counties of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, respectively.)  I don't know enough about the United Kingdom situation to comment there.  The reason why I think that these articles can be deleted and should be is that they are obsolete without official governmental sanction — without governmental sanction, in effect, it becomes original research as to whether, for example, Jinshan District, New Taipei is a part of the Taipei metropolitan area, when there will be some who argue that it is and some who argue it isn't, with neither side having reliable sources supporting them.  In particular, the prior-to-Kaohsiung-City/County-merger Kaohsiung metropolitan area artificially chose 10 cities/townships of Kaohsiung County to consider as part of the Kaohsiung metropolitan area.  Well, Kaohsiung's influence doesn't just die at the border of those 10 cities/townships (which are now districts of the merged Kaohsiung City).  With governmental definitions, at least there is one reliable source to pinpoint where the metropolitan area ends and where the non-metropolitan area starts; with the government decertifying these definitions, there is no objective way to determine where the metropolitan area ends, or whether, for example, Tainan and Kaohsiung should be considered a single metropolitan area.  For another example, previously, I felt it was rather arbitrary to consider Yingge part of the Taoyuan-Jhongli metropolitan area rather than Taipei, but at least there was an official governmental position.  Now it would be completely arbitrary to do so.  --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lacking official status doesn't necessarily warrant deletion or irrelevance. For example, Greater Tokyo Area has many definitions (ranging from government-specified, former city limits, labor markets, radial distance, etc.). I think a note could be added to inform readers that the government no longer provides statistics on the areas (like what has been done in Chinese wiki), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course, I do understand where you're coming from, but saying a metropolitan area is no longer significant doesn't quite make sense. Definite keep for Taipei–Keelung, by the way. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all per WP:NTEMP. Just because they are no longer official designations does not mean that we eliminate the articles. If they historically existed, and the articles are supported with sources, there is no cause to delete them. Doing so would be the same as deleting all of our biographies after the deaths of the people they are about.  Jim Miller  See me 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the difference there is that the persons actually existed, actually did things, and actually were notable (otherwise, they should get deleted, whether living or not). These "metropolitan areas" are artificial constructs that only existed on paper and had no significance legally or otherwise independent from their governmental definitions.  --Nlu (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the Confederate States of America no longer exists, but we have an article on it. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy keep actually, because the deletion nomination is on a false premise, that things that have been superseded are not appropriate topics. We're an encyclopedia, not just a list of current political subdivisions. All organized communities are geographic or political areas that ever existed are appropriate topics, just as are the ones in the present.     DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But that response is based on the false premise that these were "geographic or political areas." They were not; there was never any actual governmental organizations (a joint powers board, a liaison committee, a joint planning commission, &c.) that existed over these areas, nor were they geographic in nature.  Unlike, for example, the San Francisco Bay Area, which has a number of governmental agencies that, at least in theory, coordinated the actions of the city and county governments of the region, none of these on-paper metropolitan areas ever had anything of that nature.  They existed on paper.  They gained absolutely no traction administratively or popularly.  They were abolished without anything having ever been done on those "metropolitan" levels.  And I am disappointed that while I acknowledge there may be reasons to keep them, not even one of the responses so far has addressed what I've pointed out.  --Nlu (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither are any of the US MSAs. There are no common organizations that cover the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Metropolitan Statistical Area, it is simply a government designation - an artificial construct. That doesn't make the existence and definition of the area any less notable.  Jim Miller  See me 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, obscure, but if Wikipedia can have a whole category of defunct states, we can do relatively obscure Republic of China paperwork V. Joe (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.