Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second city of the United Kingdom


 * 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. --Core desat 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Second city of the United Kingdom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A magnet for edit warring, trivia, random unreliable sources and ridiculous original research. The United Kingdom section of our article Second city contains everything that needs to be said on this topic. ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak merge and strong redirect any reliable, verifiable material to the abovementioned article section, and create an anchored redirect. -- saberwyn 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ADDITIONAL: Above is a not-a-delete not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, that BBC and the New York Times are no better than blogs. THis has much more detail than the all inclusive article, and thats the way it should be. The main article is already unwieldy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is, of course, a great source. Here's an article from the NYT identifying Birmingham as the UK's second city. And here's an article from the NYT identifying Manchester as the second city. So that's got us precisely nowhere, except to demonstrate that there is some debate over the issue: exactly what the concise statement in the main Second city article says. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, seems to pass WP:V but the potential for edit warring is high. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of high quality references. NYT and BBC! Mathmo Talk 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as far as I know, potential for a lot of edit warring isn't usually used as a reason for deletion, or most of the 'controversial articles' on wikipedia would go.Merkinsmum 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I'm surprised this and similar articles even exist, and that they look like original research at first glance, I've got to admit this one is well-written and decently sourced. A slight aftertaste of WP:OR lingers after reading it, but it's nothing that would warrant deletion in my book. --Targeman 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A good article on an issue which many people might wish to look up. RegRCN 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of interest in this topic meets any notability guideline you could think of. Has plenty of sources to enable an article to be written without original research. Edit warring not a grounds for deletion. Davewild 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, I just came across the article because I wanted to understand the debate and found it balanced and informative.Billlion 08:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable debate with plenty of outside sources. -- Beloved freak  16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough sources for both sides of the argument, including polls reported in the BBC, to keep it NPOV if both 'factions' chip in as they have recently.Merkinsmum 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Knowing the 'first city' (London), is quite enough. This article may continue to be place for 'edit wars'. GoodDay 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet The problem with this article is that it was created to promote the view of the Manchester City Council PR department that there really is some sort of widespread debate in the country over which is the second city, and that the long-established definition of second city as second largest city is somehow no longer appropriate. A complete re-write, also emphasising that Manchester has a very good claim to be third city (with citations), might be enough to give it a properly neutral stance. TharkunColl 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge The article has plenty of rather useless information on it and would be better suited as a much shorter balanced paragraph on the Second city article and then would be able to benefit from more input from international users on that article. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Whilst I have the greatest respect for the authors of the Second City article, this looks to me to be a classic case of more information than can reasonably fit in one article, justifying a separate one with a 'see also' link. It's also a pretty good article, and doesn't seem POV to me - perhaps people who disagree are themselves being POV in refusing to acknowledge that a debate exists? Lordrosemount 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is all about a controversial topic. Merging it into Second City will simply move the controversy there, and as such will serve no purpose.  There is a genuine debate regarding the topic (as can be clearly seen simply within editors of the article), and I do not believe that the article has yet passed "the point of no return".  Indeed, some good progress has recently been made. Fingerpuppet 11:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As regards the nominators view on the edit-warring, I agree with Fingerpuppet, it's seemed a bit better recently.:) with a slightly more conciliatory spirit between the editors.  As to the nominator saying it's Original Research, it may be collated in the article, but it's all sourced to newspapers etc.  The abundance of sources and the diversity of editor's views, I think keeps it from being POV or OR.Merkinsmum 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: This page is just a collection of cherry-picked POVs on an issue that is largely unimportant. It's fair enough to have a page defining Second city, but this page is an attempt to establish as fact something that can really only ever be a matter of opinion . --Escape Orbit 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a reasonably good article, with many references, on a subject of genuine interest to many who may refer to Wikipedia. – Agendum 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if we end up having to block 130,000 IPs because of a dispute over this, it's more trouble than it's worth Will (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - we'll probably just get a resolution and then an opinion in favour of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Leeds will disrupt the setting and we're back to sqaure one. Onnaghar tl 18:46, 5 August 2007 (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.