Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of cities with more than 100 000 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 delete seems to be a duplicate of List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants, no reason presented why that's inadaquate. Content from that article can be split though if there's a consensus. W.marsh 00:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants
Along with the daughter articles, this duplicates information already at List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Something needs to go, here, and I think it should be the set that is strangely organized and strangely named. Further nominations on the daughter articles to follow. --Dekimasu 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The further nominations are for the following: Note that because the lists include capitals even when the capitals have less than 100,000 people, the Oceania list is not so much of a list of cities as a list of capitals. Having the articles separate also has led to them being in different states of disrepair (the Europe article lists the populations of some consitutent cities, but others don't). Dekimasu 09:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Africa
 * List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Asia
 * List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Europe
 * List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: North America
 * List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: Oceania
 * List of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants: South America
 * Also note that deleting the single list would derail coordinated work at Missing articles for towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Dekimasu 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge any additional information (for example, from the Europe list) and redirect to List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants (also, consider dropping the "towns and" from that title while we're at it). Nom has a very good point; however, I don't see the need for deletion here.  -- Visviva 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This could be a long list, I can see that already. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Turn into a category On the other hand, this has a virtue of being completable; however, a category would be a lot easier to maintain and the only value of a list would be to sort it by country, something that would be easily done by having country categories. Or merge it into the whole list.  However, 100000 people seems like a low threshold to me, but that's a subjective thing.  ColourBurst 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Listcruft w/o clear purpose. What kind of magic is in the 100k number? Please do not create category. Categories should be used only for major defining characteristics, not as a poor man database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Powers of ten (and other round numbers) to denote milestone achievements are not really magic, but they are useful; we have plenty of them around here. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a quick perusal here found 3000 hit club, while there's no magic about 3000 hits rather than 3127, people tend to think in round numbers; Category:Centenarians nothing really magic about 100 years rather than 99 or 101, is there? And, of course, nearly every list in Category:Top_lists is some round number from the Fortune 500 & Fortune 1000 (not that Fortune thought too hard about the Fortune 488 or the Fortune 1109) to The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, not the 101 or the 99 greatest, etc.... Carlossuarez46 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously another weakness of Wikipedia. A more serious argument against the list (or cat): in the Czech Republic cities with > 100k people get larger percentage of money from state budget than the smaller cities. As a result those just a little bellow the threshold cheat in many ways at the time of making the decision. The "official" numbers easily jump up by hundredths to thousands overnight. There are five cities (Olomouc, Hradec Kralove, Pardubice, Usti nad Labem, Liberec) that oscilate around 100k every year. At least the lists should acknowledge inherent fuzziness of their classification. Pavel Vozenilek 23:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That weakness of WP is self-imposed: verifiability from a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion; not truth. So these lists are no more nor less accurate than any article that purports to give a population figure (which changes daily in any large area anyhow). To contrast the Czech example: in the US, and may other places probably, there are serious under-counts by census because some people don't respond, some people shouldn't be in the country at all, some people are wanted for crimes, some people have no fixed abode (homeless), and (not surprisingly) some people don't trust the government with their information. But, nearly every entry on a populated US geographic entity here uses the census population figures. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - get rid of the capital cities anomaly by all means but I see no reason to dismiss this as list-cruft. Why do you say these pages are "strangely organised"? There are too many cities to include in one world-wide page so the continent pages are necessary. Most wotld lists split off by continent when they get too long - why not here? If you really want to delete something on the grounds of duplication it should be the other list (the "towns and cities" one, I mean). Jameswilson 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean out the entries (capital cities) that don't belong. The list meets the list criteria: it's verifiable and clear what should go in and should not (needs that clean up though). Carlossuarez46 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Once again, this list already exists at List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Whether it is too long or not is debatable, but the page with all cities over 100,000 together is at 59KB. This is definitely a workable page length in the case of a list. It makes more sense to me to have one page instead of seven, and I'm irked by the page that is nothing more than a list of lists. Separating the lists has already caused the editing of them to diverge, and this makes the lists less reliable. Looking through the pages, I trust the List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants more than the others. At any rate, the main point was that there is duplication going on and something needs to go. Dekimasu 01:23, 7 October 2006 (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.