Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan bias


 * 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 no consensus. A merge (in either direction) with Urban bias may be advisable. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Metropolitan bias

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The article consists of SYNTH associations of various mentions of the word "bias" that do not, as a group, describe or discuss any well-defined phenomenon. Much of the content is easily explained by population density and demographics, whereas "bias" is not demonstrated.  SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Page creator here. What the nominator misunderstands as "SYNTH" is actually the development of a WP:CONCEPTDAB which explains the appearance of "diverse meanings" because the phrase is used in diverse ways. The section headers separate various meanings. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Added: I'd also like to raise an objection that the nominator appears to be WP:CANVASSing to talk pages of specific other recent AfDs (1, 2) which he likely believes will attract editors sympathetic to his nomination. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I second the objection. The wording of the posts at two other AFD discussions is clearly biased. A argument can be made that the audiences are partisan. Because of this violation of CANVASS WP:Canvassing we will have to post notices and tag editors who arrive her due to canvassing. This is unnecessary and disruptive.– Lionel(talk) 11:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks like a legit CONCEPTDAB to me, and is preferable to developing 3+ disambiguated articles with available and later sources, especially since the concepts all really boil down to what's covered in the lead. They aren't three qualitiatively different things, they're three minor variants of the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've expressed elsewhere, either merge/redirect to Urban bias, or merge redirect that here. These seem to be different terms for the same concept. I haven't seen anything that treats them as distinct.  G M G  talk  03:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)  — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * While the two phrases superficially sound a lot alike, "urban bias" is a distinct phenomenon of its own. We could address this confusion with hatnotes. -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Metropolitan_bias says "'urban bias' was a tendency of governments..." This would seem to suggest that Urban bias could be merged into that section . Am I missing something? Maybe someone should be bold? – Lionel(talk) 11:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not well-read on the urban bias phenomenon, but its quite possible that Metropolitan bias is more like an evolution of it and could be added to that article. The current section as worded would in essence stay as a summary pointing there. -- Netoholic @ 12:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a note, but I'm not sure it's really run-of-the-mill canvassing if you're having a discussion prior to an AfD about whether there should be an AfD.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  10:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain the situation a little more, Urban Bias seems to be the original formulation according to the World Bank, and was originated by Lipton in 1977, and led to it's own bona fide school of thought. The WB's own study on Metropolitan Bias mentions Urban Bias by name six separate times in their discussion, and conclude in their final paragraph: Wherever that pattern holds, any strategy for urban poverty reduction that places greater focus on, or allocates more resources to, metropolitan areas, suffers from a “metropolitan bias” analogous to the urban bias of old. In other words, same underlying concept, different name.
 * Similarly, the BBC can't avoid using the terms interchangeably: The audience research indicated that network news and current affairs output originating in England was sometimes perceived to have an “urban bias or outlook”. ... Some rural audiences across the UK feel the BBC has a metropolitan bias. Similarly for discussion of housing conditions in the US, metropolitan bias in PRC government policy, economic policy in 61 developing countries, public policy in India... maybe that's enough to illustrate the point.
 * So it's definitely "a thing" in the literature, whether or not that "thing" is an accurate description of the state of the universe. There seems to be some serious scholarly debate on that point (e.g., Journal of Economic Studies), but you know, there's also serious debate on whether systems theory is nearly a perfect theory of everything, or inane hogwash that meaningfully explains essentially nothing (I fall in the latter camp), but that doesn't change the fact that it is "a thing" in the literature. And when we look at urban bias and metropolitan bias, there doesn't seem to be serious scholarship that I'm seeing which treats them in depth as distinct, but rather either as synonymous and interchangeable terms, or at the very least as separate but analogous.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you might be coming upon the reasons I initially arranged this article as a WP:CONCEPTDAB with summaries and pointers to other articles. There is certainly a large enough corpus of work devoted to urban bias (world economic development meaning) to keep that as a separate and distinct article. It certainly would be inappropriate to merge urban/metropolitan bias (media meaning) into that economic topic. The only reasonable place that the media meaning could be merged to is media bias, but that article is already at 67k which puts it at "probably should be split" per WP:SIZESPLIT, so adding a new section probably isn't wise. I ping the talk pages of both. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This amounts to a concession that Metropolitan bias is not a well-defined topic. The article is just a collation of very insignificant citations that happen to use those two words more or less in proximity to one another. There's no subject without SYNTH OR and POV theorizing about whatever it is that happens in cities. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxford's A Dictionary of Media and Communication seems to think the media usage is worthy of a definition. I really can't think of a better counter to the claim its not "well-defined" than an Oxford dictionary. -- Netoholic @  19:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's like creating an article about Dog leg and then have the article sections be about veterinary femur surgery, golf course layout, and the Swiss canine-meat sausage they serve at New Year's. The article has not defined or described its subject.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * delete or merge as proposer. The article uses SYNTH and OR to promote a POV by conflating the ordinary disparities in the distribution of a wide range of activities and economic allocations -- normal stuff -- with "bias".
 * In a nutshell, from a US Census publication:
 * Now, there are many reasons for this. But the use of the term "bias", as if to suggest some unfair disadvantagement or denigration of the rural areas is basically SYNTH and OR and appears to be part of a narrative to deprecate the views and interests of the metropolitan mainstream, which includes the mainstream of media, education, culture, and commerce throughout most of the world SPECIFICO  talk 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, there are many reasons for this. But the use of the term "bias", as if to suggest some unfair disadvantagement or denigration of the rural areas is basically SYNTH and OR and appears to be part of a narrative to deprecate the views and interests of the metropolitan mainstream, which includes the mainstream of media, education, culture, and commerce throughout most of the world SPECIFICO  talk 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge Seems to be a spate of articles that share two similarities (Metropolitan bias, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Liberal bias in academia (since moved)). They all contain the word bias, and they all document a conservative view that harmful liberal bastions exist. The word bias suggests prejudice, and the existence of bias in any of these areas is highly controversial. Until and unless these articles are renamed and repurposed to provide an NPOV, I think they should be removed or merged into some other articles. O3000 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To closer: I have twice now been reverted for employing the canvassed tag to express concern about potential WP:Canvassing at play with O3000's vote - once by O3000 himself, and again by SPECIFICO the nominator of this AFD. The template is commonly used to communicate concern to the eventual closer - who will judge the merits of that concern. It is a violation of WP:TPOC to edit or remove comments of other users. -- Netoholic @ 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not being POINTY, I'll not tag your !vote as CANVASSING. But, I strongly object to your baseless casting of aspersions. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Nonsense, to suggest there is canvassing going on is a pretty clear admission of bad faith. What there is in reality is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that has been dug up and put under community scrutiny. I'm fully with O3000 and SPECIFICO here, you need to stop this Netoholic! Carl Fredrik  talk 07:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To closer: Signed comments discussing concerns about WP:CANVASSING have again been removed, this time by CFCF. This is disruptive and against WP:TPOC. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't believe that this concept is well defined and / or exists, see for example Google books preview where the term appears in passing and is not discussed as a concept. This is clearly not sufficient for an article on a perceived bias. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to urban bias — These seem to be the same, and some of the sources to this article in fact user the other term. That said there are considerable amounts of WP:OR in the current article, and that should of course not be merged into the other article. Carl Fredrik  talk 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge this article to urban bias. As CFCF has stated, the articles appear to be the same. The true issue here seems to be what wording is used, so merging the two articles seems like the best idea here. EggRoll97 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was originally neutral. But after reviewing Netoholic's recent improvements I am now Keep. In addition, I have to admit, I wasn't familiar with WP:CONCEPTDAB. I suspect this may be the case with some of the editors who have !voted. This article is a textbook example of CONCEPTDAB. I do see the possibility of merging Urban bias into this article, and it is obvious that Metropolitan bias is the main article. Any merging should be decided by consensus at Talk pages of both articles. – Lionel(talk) 05:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.