Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most populous cities in Pakistan


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

List of most populous cities in Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Suggesting deletion of this list as it is based around speculation and original research. From the article lede: "Since no official census has taken place after 1998, these figures are estimates based on a steady estimated growth rate of about 3%-4% which would produce a slight over-estimate. The next census is expected to be held in 2016/2017." If I am misinterpreting, please contact me on my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - lists based on estimated populations are pointless. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - the nominator's description of the article as it currently stands, or rather the figures in it, as "speculation and original research" seems about right - the article has a claimed source for the figures, but the current figures in the article are definitely not from that source, whose figures at city level seems to be from the 1998 census rather than far higher "2014 estimates" as labelled in the article. However, there seems to be general acceptance of lists of city populations like this one, and the claimed source is one that is used in at least some other such lists, so I'm provisionally accepting it as reliable. Given this (and the nominator produces no argument in disagreement), I am disappointed that the nominator apparently did not sample the article's lengthy history to try to find earlier versions where the figures in the article did correspond with the source. As it happens, there do appear to be such earlier versions reporting 1998 census figures that do at least mostly agree with the referenced source, the latest of which seems to be this one from last summer. The most obvious first solution is therefore not deletion but reverting to that version and cleaning up the relatively few discrepancies with the source. Assuming (again) the source to be OK, the only reason I can see against this is that the article has received a lot of attention from IP editors who have been changing (usually inflating) the figures without producing any alternative sources (User:Elockid, at one time, seems to have been reverting a lot of these edits, but seems not to have been around much recently). If we keep this, therefore, it is either going to need semi-protection or editors who are able and willing to keep a frequent eye on it. PWilkinson (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Lists of most populous cities is a worthwhile topic, I think we all agree on this. As with all of my nominations, best efforts were made prior (as per WP:BEFORE) to locate appropriate sourcing but were not successful.  Thank you for reviewing the edit history as well.  With the diff you have provided  one of the referenced links are broken and the second link does not present itself as suitable as an encyclopedic source.  Please also note that there are over 100 pages linking to this speculative list, some of which are using this list as a source to support content in other articles.  See Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_Pakistan.  With that in mind, I am not opposed to replacing this list with one that is appropriately sourced, should that be possible.  What is your understanding of the diff you have provided, are you confident in the sources?  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This flawed piece of original research and speculation should be converted to sourced data or blanked. The topic, however, is notable. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep with the proviso that it's rolled back to a version based on reliable sources and cleaned up accordingly. I'm happy to indefinitely semi-protect the page if there is consensus to do so. Per, perhaps it's it's not time to start again Philg88 ♦talk 11:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - Is there any consensus on there being a diff supported by reliable sources to roll back to? I am still of the mind that this list should be deleted for the reasons outlined above, but naturally would not object with it being replaced with one supported by trustworthy sources.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with no objection to writing a new list based on reliable sources - if necessary, the 1998 census, however outdated that is. I don't think there is a revision in the page history with recoverable reliable sources. Huon (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep; I have corrected it based on official 1998 census data. Sorry for convincing Philg88 to delete it when ultimately little effort was required to salvage it. Huon (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up; the list does have value per se. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because a census hasn't been conducted recently is not a valid reason to delete what is otherwise a notable list. There are alternative sources available and they should be used. This list is important as it displays the largest cities of Pakistan, ranked by population. As far as I know, we don't have any other list providing such details. Various other countries have such lists, so there is a precedent established.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:56, 16 May 2015 (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.