Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations)


 * 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   delete. slakr \ talk / 02:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is list is useless. We already have in Wikipedia lists of Worlds Largest Cities, Worlds Largest Cities Proper, Worlds Largest Municipalities, Worlds Largest Urban Areas, Worlds Largest Metropolitan Areas, Worlds Largest Conurbations, World Megacities and World Megalopolises and this list is just a mixture of metropolitan areas, urban areas, conurbations and city cores, without any unifying criteria!, so we don't have any need for this list.The population figures on this page usually represent metropolitan areas, urban areas or core cities, without any real specific unique urban agglomeration criteria. Besides we already have respective lists of all the previous criterias I mentioned, we don't need an unfair un-neutral mixture of them, We already have too many world population lists! Ransewiki (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - list is useful for people looking for such information. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   08:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why would people want to look for outdated corrupted figures. As I earlier said the list doesn't have a single united criteria. These figures are infact a mixture of different criterias for different cities. Wikipedia can't have a list of cities by population, if the figures for some cities are metropolitan and others are city core, because they are completely different things. Ransewiki (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nom. This is like comparing apples and oranges. Most of the statistics on this list are not even urban agglomerations. Staglit (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly, that is what I meant. Ransewiki (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times you vote for delete? Third time. Please read Articles for deletion. Nomitation is vote for delete, you (nominator) can not vote again, only comments. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - The last I checked - Commenting wasn't !voting for deletion, You yourself may want to read Articles for deletion before pointing everyone else to it!. —Davey 2010→    ✉   19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * second vote, 3rd vote. You "checked" it? Please do not lie! Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ah apologies for that comment!, I assumed you just meant the "comments" above, I ofcourse didn't check the history!, —Davey 2010→    ✉   20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok :) Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   20:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as not useful at all, Plus no evidence of notability. —Davey 2010→    ✉   19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or selectively merge relevant content to Urban agglomeration. Urban agglomeration already has its own list of largest urban agglomerations, which seems sufficient for this particular demographic category. This separate list-based article is redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It is normal to see nominations based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and deletion votes based on unfounded assertions and WP:NOTUSEFUL. But all in the same AfD, no. Especially not with the extremely rare (these days) Keep vote of USEFUL. You all need to go read WP:ATA and WP:DEL. Anarchangel (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the article: "" The criteria for inclusion and ranking are not just inconsistent, they are regionally subjective depending on which authority is doing the counting. How can this possibly be objective? Not appropriate for an encyclopedic list. Ivanvector (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2014 (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.