Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual lists are largely backed by a single United Nations source. The pages themselves are also WP:NOTSTATS as they involve constant updating via new census data every year. All the following subpages are also nominated:

Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment To be fair, the only statistic on any of these pages is the title, which really isn't what WP:NOTSTATS is about. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep We have lots of Lists of cities and it's not clear why we should delete this one in particular or how this would help our coverage of the topic. No doubt there is scope for improvement but this is best done by maintaining an open history of our efforts rather than by using deletion to obfuscate it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. First can anyone explain the distinction that makes a population of 100,000 notable? Second, article is using single sources from data from 2016 or before, this is likely to require continual updating as more places experience population growth and are added to the lists, making them unwieldy. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. 100,000 population is generally regarded by geographers as the minimum for a town to be classified as a large town, so this is not indiscriminate in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the by-name lists, which seem to be a rather strange way to present this information, but keep and regenerate the by-country lists; as said above, 100,000 inhabitants seems to be a significant threshold of notability for many purposes. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all The source is reliable, so that not a problem. Nor is the fact that it may need updating at time to be accurate as the population of some areas increase to be included on the list or possibly decrease for whatever reason, since many articles are potentially outdated, we don't erase them though.  Perfectly valid lists articles.   D r e a m Focus  15:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Although 100,000 inhabitants is some kind of a bar, it's still quite indiscriminate. But Wikipedia is not a directory and the massive scope of these lists is unencyclopedic.--Pudeo (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The rationale for nomination has three main points as I understand the nomination:
 * 1) Only one source is given. The fact is WP:NEXIST However the information would likely be cited by mainstream press from the same censuses used by the UN. It seems like a fools errand to cite the numbers which will quote the same sources, but if more sources are needed- they exist. But we likely all agree that the United Nations is a WP:RS.
 * 2) The nomination cites WP:NOTSTATS. I cannot see how that policy/guideline applies to these lists. The following is from the WP:NOTSTATS policy/guideline: Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This policy/guideline does not apply to these lists, as they are clear and concise.
 * 3) The nomination states that these lists will need to be updated, as a reason to delete the lists. Updating is needed with every BLP of every professional athlete. I am sure we would not delete professional athletes for fear that their statistics would not be updated. Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all for reasons cited by SportingFlyer, Andrew D., User:Dream Focus and Lightburst. Obviously, this particular page is a good pivot to the multiple related articles (alphabetical and geographic) that it connects to.  Useful information, which has a worldwide perspective.   WP:Preserve.  Our readers come first, and benefit from its existence. WP:Not paper. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Rationale for deletion is a perversion of the policies cited. p  b  p  13:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a really difficult AfD to judge since it is based on a UN list that's fairly low quality, but a quick Google search shows 100,000 people has been a normal cutoff for most of the world's cities, including the U.S. Census, meaning it probably passes WP:LISTN. It's not WP:NOTSTATS since it's not truly statistical, it's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it does discriminate based on population... could see it going either way, but on balance, there's more reasons to keep than to delete. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no good reason to delete this article! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep cities with 100,000 people are definitely notable. newspapers from towns much smaller are recognized as reliable sources for many Wikipedia articles. ---  GingeBro  (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 July 2019 (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.