Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of metropolitan areas by population


 * 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 Redirect to World largest cities. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas by population

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I suggest a redirect and delete for this article, for the following reasons: There is already an article called World largest cities, listing the 100 largest urban agglomerations in the world. As there is no need for two articles on the same topic, the current article is redundant. What is more, this article is of a rather low quality. While the World largest cities uses the data provided by the UN for every city, this article has been the subject of attempts to move some cities up the list. Thus, the UN data is still used for many cities, but for some other cities (notably Seoul) alternative sources are used to move these cities up the table. Given the fact that UN population data exists for every major city, it is of course most natural to use the same source throughout the table and the failure to do so in the current article diminshes its credibility. I see no reason to merge the two articles, as this article is of lower quality and reliability throughout. A redirect is necessary so that pages linking to the current page would link to the more credible one, but after that the current article could be deleted as it already exists in a more credible, encyclopedic and NPOV version. JdeJ 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Fork. The logic of the nominatror is correct. Such lists only make sense by the same source. `'юзырь:mikka 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect as a likely search term. Per the nomination, the list using UN sources has total consistency, while this list can have errors of intent or interpretation creep in when using multiple independant sources. -- saberwyn 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator misunderstands the listing of the World Urbanization Prospects Report. It is also not harmonized as in the list being nominated for deletion. All figures still come from the various national census authorities, not the UN. The UN simply chose an existing statistical definition that most closely approximates the concept of "urban agglomeration" (urban area adjusted to administrative boundaries). Note that different statistical concepts are still used in the UN list (i.e. some use city proper, some use agglomeration, some use urban area, some use metropolitan area). I have no opinion on this particular nomination. --Polaron | Talk 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm aware of that, of course the UN doesn't conduct censuses side by side with national authorities. Still, the UN list is at least put together by a multitude of international specialists of this area, thus more reliable than a list where each and every one of us can select which sources to use. JdeJ 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that a purely UN list was tried before for several months and still people complain because of the reasons I stated above. I would even venture to say that there were more complaints then than there are in the current version. But in the end it's still the same amount of work trying to maintain the list whatver basis is chosen for the list. --Polaron | Talk 13:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt for a moment that you're right, there will always be people complaining - usually for nationalistic reasons - that's something we'll never get away from. But as already pointed out, it doesn't make much sense having two lists on the same topic and it makes no sense at all having a list where sources are selected to suit people's opinions rather than based on their accuracy. I believe we can safely say that the UN list represent a much higher knowledge and NPOV than this list. JdeJ 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. Eusebeus 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect as redundant. I do want to point out however, that problematic edits such as people trying to reorganize the list for whatever reasons, is never a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has some introductory text that isn't in World largest cities - can we move that text over before we delete/redirect, if we decide to do so?  If so, then I would agree that we should do that.  Redirecting is important, imo, because "List of metropolitan areas by population" describes the content of the article far better then "world largest cities".Toresica 16:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment, that World largest cities is a poor choice of title in this situation, and it may be more beneficial to move that article over to this title when the AfD has run its course.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that would be the best option. JdeJ 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the top 100 populated cities article.--JForget 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the top 100 cities article, they both have the same information, anyway. Useight 01:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no clear definition for what constitutes a metropolitan area (for example a half-million agglomeration in North America or Europe might have more metropolitan functions than a 1-million agglo in Asia). Don't support the redirect for the same reason, the "100 largest agglomerations" (a pretty questionable label itself, btw) aren't identical to "metropolitan areas". Malc82 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The list makes no claim that a more populous region has more "metropolitan functions". It simply orders them according to population based on official definitions where available. But you are correct that urban agglomerations are not the same as metropolitan areas. --Polaron | Talk 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP this article is usefulCholga 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate? As already pointed out, a list building on a number of different sources to suit people's tastes is by definition of limited usability. I still could see it as useful if that were the only option, but since we already have an another article that also list the 100 largest metropolitan areas and being consisent in using the same source, I still see no need for this article. JdeJ 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Metropolitan areas are not the same as cities. Statistics on the world's largest metropolitan agglomerations are useful and interesting, separate from statistics on the largest cities. There will never be universal agreement on this statistic, but that is not a good reason not to present a list of estimates with extensive information on the sources of data (which this article has).--orlady 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm afraid you have not read the comments nor looked at the other article. Both of the lists are lists of metropolitan areas, not of cities (and I agree, as others have pointed out, that the other article should be renamed with this name once this article is - hopefully - removed.) So while I agree with everything you say about cities and metropolitan areas being different and with the interest of such a list, none of that is an argument for keeping this article. Once again, this article and the other list precisely the same thing. The only difference, apart from the name, is that the other list is consistent in its use of sources, this one is not. JdeJ 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with JdeJ. Redirect and Delete.
 * Keep this could be very intresting to some people, and it is in the process of being sourced. It looks like a very encyclopediac article could come out of this.-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, nobody is denying that the article is interesting. The problem is that it is identical to another article, that's the reason for it being nominated for deletion. The reason this article is nominated instead of its twin is that the other article is neutral and consequent in its use of sources whereas this one is anything but. If the other article didn't exist, I would not have submitted this one for deletion - instead I would have engaged in applying the same source for all cities in order to make it NPOV, encyclopedic and consistent. However, as the result of such changes would be 100% identical to the already existing article on exactly the same topic, this is listed for deletion as redundant. Removing it from Wikipedia does not mean that the topic isn't useful and interesting - just that there is no need for having multiple articles on exactly the same thing, which is the opinion taken by most contributors here. JdeJ 23:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NO, there is a difference. A city is not the same as a metropolitan area. A metropolitin area includes a city and its suburbs, thus it includes multiple cities. A city is just one. World largest cities would include population only within the city boundries. List of metropolitan areas by population would include the population of the city + the surrounding suburbian cities, so there is a difference. Besides, between the two lists, the one you nominated for deletion is the better list of the two.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is another list that includes only the city proper at List of cities by population. Technically the World largest cities is a list of urban agglomerations, which are not quite the same as metropolitan areas. How about we turn all of these lists into a single sortable table with multiple figures based on the various official definitions? --Polaron | Talk 02:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be a little difficult to do. It would probably be better as seperate lists.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read through the comments! The topic covered in both the lists is identical, except for this list being incoherent. Yes, I agree that there's a difference between a city, a metropolitan area and an urban agglomeration, but that's not what this is about. The two lists list exactly the same thing, just under different names. This can easily be seen by just taking the time to actually look at the two lists, since both use the UN sources for many of the cities. In other words, the population figures given for the majority of the cities on both lists is completely identical, taking from the same source and covering exactly the same area. But whereas the other list is coherent in always using the same source (something which is necessary for any meaningful comparison), this list from time to time use other sources, usually inserted by people from those countries. So once again, as I've said in almost every comment, the two lists cover exactly the same thing. I'll be glad to take part in a discussion about whether the name of the other list should be cities, urban agglomerations or metropolitan areas, but that discussion would be more suited on that list's talk page. Because it's not the issue here JdeJ 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So the objective here is to delete the article that cites multiple (sometimes contradictory) sources and retain the article that relies on a single source? Sorry, but that smells to me of suppression of information. Statistics about population are inherently messy and uncertain -- there may be valid reasons for differences between sources. Therefore, instead of insisting that one particular source has The Truth, a good encyclopedia article would describe the various different values and identify their sources. --orlady 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about "suppression of information", it's about maintaining a NPOV list. I agree 100% with you that it's very hard to come up with a correct picture (as correct as possible) of the size of different cities. But who do you think is better suited for it, international experts in field at UN who have years of experience or amateurs at Wikipedia whose main objective may be to make their own city rank as high as possible. Given the fact that there are two identical lists, yes, I definitely prefer the one that is coherent and put toghether by impartial experts to the one that isn't coherent and put together by people who may be neither impartial nor have any knowledge of the area. In most cases, we cannot make such a choice, but now there are two identical lists for the same thing and I do prefer the NPOV and scientific one. That's what I see an encyclopedic. JdeJ 18:23, 27 June 2007 (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.