Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of second cities (2nd nomination)


 * 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 List of largest cities and second largest cities by country.  Sandstein  06:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

List of second cities
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is the same, and full, list of second cities at List of largest cities and second largest cities by country. Vanjagenije 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of largest cities and second largest cities by country per above. Jan 1922 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keep and think how to "reconcile" this list with List of largest cities and second largest cities by country. The intent of the discussed article is not "second largest", but in a more broad sense. Probably it must rid of "second largest" and discuss only well-referenced cases of cities second in importance after the capital, such as Bonn after Berlin, despite being "19th largest". Since this is a somewhat subjective criterion, one country may have several "second cities", depending on perspective, or throughout history. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * redirect -- changed my vote convinced by JimmyGuano; in favor of creating a normal (i.e., non-list) article about the term, if it is possible at all; i.e., if this concept is discussed somewhere per se, not just usage of the term. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This page used to be the non-list page. It was moved from second city. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. BTW, I expanded the disambig page Second City with Glasgow and Manchester; and Chicago was already there. Any other verifiable usages? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And so you repeat history afresh, on a new page. &#9786;  See this 2003 edit and Talk:List of second cities/Archive 1 for where this very article has trod this same ground long since. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is 7 years after now. Hopefully the history will run differently this time, according to new and different rules and traditions, and the ground is not the same either. Anyway, I don't quite understand your point besides its obvious (and appreciated) amusement value. Do you have any objections to my expansion of the disambig page? Lorem Ip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Redirect The article doesn't have any source to establish the key point that all of the rest of the content is built upon - the idea that the phrase "Second City" refers to the second most important city in a country. This seems highly questionable as an objective observation. In the UK for example, the phrase "Second City" is routinely used as a nickname for Birmingham, in a way that it isn't generally for Manchester, despite the polling evidence that Manchester is considered more important by a greater proportion of the population. The article's necessary implication that the capital city of a country is considered the "first city" is also highly questionable - wherever is considered the "second city" of the USA, it is surely the largest city - New York - not the capital - Washington DC - that it is second to? At the very least, the opening suggestion as to the meaning of the article title is sufficently contentious to require substantial reliable citation to back it up, with due weight also given to contrary evidence. None is currently provided. Unless this point is established the rest of the article is worthless because it all follows from what would be a false premise. There may be scope for an article on the phrase "Second City" itself, but if so it should focus on the history and usage of the phrase, not the fundamentally subjective and unencyclopaedic activity of deciding which of a number of competing candidates it would be most appropriate to apply the phrase to. The current article, as a list, seems irredeemably focused on the latter task, and is thus better deleted. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect This list is made up by massive amount of original research. Most entries are not supported by reliable sources. The only section with substantial sourcing is United Kingdom, which is already covered in Second city of the United Kingdom.— Chris! c / t 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting and ironic that editors want to redirect this page to the page that was copied from the December 2007 version of this page. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is interesting and ironic, but is it wrong? Nice chat, but what is your vote? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the suggested target page have been deleted in 2007 as a fork? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (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.