Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the Most Populous metropolitan areas in Peru (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 keep. Deryck C. 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

List of the Most Populous metropolitan areas in Peru
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Original research Cmonzonc (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and improve – per WP:DEL-REASON. This nomination is too vague, and has no qualification for its basis. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourced by unreliable material and he makes an original research with primary sources, in the source of population do not talk about metropolitan areas, and the user make a sum to his understanding, has several errors. This is an original research, It does not have enough references, and in fact there are unreliable, even one of them is a blog. With regard to the "population" of the same this is not verifiable, about the same article in other languages, all were created by the same IP, there seems to be making a claim that information like true or trustworthy. The same article has been deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia for be an original research, because the only reference reliable has populations by districts, and not by metropolitan areas.

From the population by districts are recreating the metropolitan population, which is not correct because the metropolitan areas are not defined by a conglomeration of districts, the metropolitan areas in Peru are actually a cluster of developments or neighborhood. In conclusion, it is using a primary source to recreate information incorrectly. This article can be replaced by an article that talks about the populations of districts or provinces.--Cmonzonc (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and improve. It´s clearly seen that most of the sources used are government planning documents of municipalities of the cities and official census estimates of peruvian government. The user seems to make use about official documentation for the article. This is useful information but It is recommended to make an improve.--Antodeabout (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The goverment statitics talk about districts, provinces, and do not talk about "metropolitan areas", that population was calculated for the editor of the article. In almost cases, the districts are not completely include in the metropolitan area and that population is a simple calculation done with a wrong approach. For that reason Wikipedia is not a primary source.In this case are using a primary source, census results. He is doing research, a shoddy investigation, with erroneous criteria to generate metropolitan populations based on census data (a primary source).

No original research: Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country

--Cmonzonc (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't format your subsequent comments as if they are new !votes by new contributors; I've struck through your duplicate "delete" accordingly. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Cmonzonc, it seems you're wrong; the user is not making an original research, it seems he's presenting the information of estimated population given officially by peruvian government and he uses official documents of plannings of cities for metropolitan areas. It seems he's using the same methodology as peruvian government for metropolitan areas as it can be seen here in the next  table of the reference about Lima metropolitan population given by peruvian government that is considering all population of the districts that form Lima metropolitan area, on the contrary that you say. Do We believe to you or to the peruvian government?--Antodeabout (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is not the same methodology, in Lima INEI provide a different population in 2012 of the calculate with that "methodology" (original research),in the cases of Arequipa, the original research or methodology, is based in erroneous criteria. ¿The user can not suppose a methodology or applying a methodology when you have the information by neighborhoods? like you see, the populations of this original research differ from the only secondary source, that actually figure only in the case of Lima. Conclusion, if one use a methodology has a different population in the Lima case, in the case of Trujillo and Arequipa no exists secondary source for contrast if the original research, differ from the applied methodology.


 * Well, it causes me curiosity and I searched for information in articles of cities and It's clearly seen that is the same methodology that in reference, the user only presents the information at year 2012. According to official documents of Trujillo the methodology for metropolitan population is the same see page 35 and 36 in reference in the table "EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POBLACIÓN POR GRANDES GRUPOS DE EDAD TRUJILLO METROPOLITANO". And according with official documents of Arequipa the methology for mertopolitan population is the same as Lima and Trujillo see page 62 in reference the table "CRECIMIENTO DISTRITAL DE AREQUIPA METROPOLITANA". So Cmonzonc it seems you haven't cheked the official documents of Peruvian cities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antodeabout (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't remember at first that I had commented on the first AFD for this, by the same nominator. He never responded there to my suggestion for fixing it according to his criticism, so I'll repeat it here: "So convert this to Metropolitan areas of Peru to explain the classification and describe the three MAs; remove everything that's not officially a metropolitan area; and create a List of distritos of Peru with a sortable population column. Would that work?" postdlf (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Ok, your propose is good idea, because only exists officialy three metropolitan areas unfortunatly no exist a official population in Arequipa and Trujillo, and in the case of the population INEI don't provide a population, only provide population by districts, cities, and indirectly the population of Lima Metropolitana (Lima+Callao), the only official reference in 2012 is this, according that reference the Metropolitan Area of Lima has a population of 9 450 585 inhabitants, the rest are only primary source, and this is not the same of the sum of all district of Lima o Callao. According the primary source used in Arequipa and Trujillo, in the Arequipa case, exists districts that have a non-metropolitan population ¿How calculate the population, if one don't know what percent of people of one district are inside the metropolitan or not?. I suggest create the list of districts, other list of provinces, delete this and create and article for each of the metropolitan areas. And only provide a total population of a metropolitan area if exist a secondary source --Cmonzonc (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it causes me curiosity and I searched for information in articles of cities and It's clearly seen that is the same methodology that in reference, the user only presents the information at year 2012. According to official documents of Trujillo the methodology for metropolitan population is the same see page 35 and 36 in reference in the table "EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POBLACIÓN POR GRANDES GRUPOS DE EDAD TRUJILLO METROPOLITANO". And according with official documents of Arequipa the methology for mertopolitan population is the same as Lima and Trujillo see page 62 in reference the table "CRECIMIENTO DISTRITAL DE AREQUIPA METROPOLITANA". So Cmonzonc it seems you haven't cheked the official documents of Peruvian cities. On the other hand, where is your source to say in the Arequipa case, exists districts that have a non-metropolitan population?, you never sourced that. The population you mention "9'450,585" coincides with the population in the article. That source you say reference is not the only one official reference, these references of the article are also official references. Do you intend to ignore or disown a document of the municipality of Chiclayo city? see page 6 in reference Área metropolitana de Chiclayo 2010. Are you an expert to ignore that?. --Antodeabout (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The references don't talk about the 2012 population, can be official source but are only pimary sources and are not fully verifiable because in these non exist any page with 2012 population. Your exposed that the methodology is applied in Lima, but only in that case we have an official source in the article, if really use that "methodology" in Lima, we have two different 2012 populations (considering this, ¿why used the expossed methodology?), the rest are only primary source. And yes, i'm expert but my afirmations are based on secondary sources, I have in my hands the new development plan of Arequipa (the replace of the plan 2002-2015), in the page 123 says that Yura in the year 2011 has a metropolitan category but only have a 92% of metropolitan population, and 8% of non-metropolitan population, a district can have a "metropolitan category" but all the population of the district could not be inside the metropolis. In other case, Cerro Colorado have a 99,5% of metropolitan population and a 0,5% of non-metropolitan population, and this happen in Socabaya, in Tiabaya, in Sabandia, etc, etc. In the page 116 say, that the 98% of population of the province of Arequipa in 2011 lives in the metropolitan area (That is a secondary source, Wikipedia is based in secondary source made by experts in the field and not an original research made for a user of Wikipedia). Really, the methodology exposed in the article is evidently an original research, done by a novice in the field, who believed that the metropolitan population figure was a mere sum of districts and that is obviously incorrect.--Cmonzonc (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but at least me, I can't believe you're an expert unless you show a certification. Anybody can say that but to believe it's true must show a certification. And It can be seen you're not speaking the truth in every argumentation you do that is very bad you lie when you say in these non exist any page with 2012 population see this Lima, estimated population 2012 that source presents information from years 2012 to 2015, so it demonstrates you don't speak with truth. All you say about Yura and other districts and new development plan of Arequipa we can't verify it you must post it here the new document to verify that you say it's true, certainly till now you haven't referenced anything of your argumentation. Do we must believe in your word when it's been shown that you lie?.. and in the case you were an expert thing that you haven't demonstrated, the documents of municipalities speak by themselves and your word has nothing to do there. And when you say Your exposed that the methodology is applied in Lima, but only in that case we have an official source in the article, if really use that "methodology" in Lima, we have two different 2012 populations ... According to the information It can be seen there's no different populations for 2012 for Lima Metropolitana, in all cases is 9`450,585. Are you trying to lie again?, if there's two different populations, what are those?, can you put them here?. --Antodeabout (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Cmonzonc, by saying "your propose is good idea" are you willing to withdraw the nomination? There are no delete !votes and the first AfD (May 2012) received no comments after the first relist. Maybe the article could be moved if necessary, after discussing on the talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (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.