Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The City


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The City

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The content of this article is wholly redundant with either City, The City (disambiguation), and/or City (disambiguation). Usage of the term (in passages such as "The term city has a special status within the UK...") is exhaustively covered in the City article, while specific examples ("Within the UK the most widespread usage of 'the City' to refer to a particular City normally refers to the City of London...") are properly covered on one of the disambiguation pages. Powers T 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep, I think there's potential for a general overview article here. This is discussing the concept of "The City", rather than the concept "city". There seems to be a number of sources out there that if we could get access to, we'd be able to make a fairly decent article here. Certainly there's viability in the "in fiction" section. I can see a couple of books out there that would be of use in cleaning this up. Anyone got the appropriate library access? Hiding T 18:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll forgive me if I remain skeptical. The "in fiction" section could certainly be expanded into a list of examples, but a list of examples does not an encyclopedia article make.  If someone actually finds a decent array of sources discussing the use of the term in fiction, I could perhaps be persuaded, but just the mere hint of a possibility of an encyclopedic article isn't enough for me.  Powers T 03:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't forgive anyone for skepticism, just as I don't expect anyone to forgive me for mine. Wasn't it Bertrand Russell who said seomthing about it not being possible to get anywhere if we start from skepticism? His point was that we should start from a position in which we take a wide assumption of anything purporting to be knowledge, conceding that it hadn't previously been rejected. Always thought that sounded like a plan, to be honest. On that note, where did you look? I ran a search of google and found more than a couple, that's what I based my opinion on. There's quite a bit of anthropological study of the concept of "The City" too.  I'm getting the feeling we're talking at cross purposes here given what I turned up. I'm confused that you looked at the same stuff I did and came to such a different conclusion, are we looking at the the same stuff given you've said no-one has yet found a decent array of sources, or is it just that we've got a semantic dispute over the meaning of the word decent?  I guess the best way to solve it would be to swap sources.  What has your exhaustive searching turned up? Hiding T 10:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said my searching was exhaustive. A simple Google search turns up a ton of false positives, so I hadn't even considered that a viable method.  I'd be curious to know how you avoided them.  Powers T 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow you. I'm guessing I took the same approach you did and identified the false positives. It's hard to know without seeing a list of sources you found. Hiding T 14:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You said you ran a search of Google. I, on the other hand, considering Google to be a waste of time due to an overwhelming percentage of false positives, was at a loss as to where else I might check, and how.  If you found some decent sources, by all means, share them.  Powers T 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're dancing a little too much here aren't we? If you really did attend the Rochester Institute of Technology then it's hard to take your comments seriously.  I doubt someone educated to such a level would really be at a loss of where to discover sources, would they? Anyway, rather than continue this slow waltz, let's quickstep. Cinema and the city, The city cultures reader, The City in Postmodern Fiction, Urban Values in Recent American Fiction, The City in Fiction, Sodoms in Eden: the city in American fiction before 1860, The governance of cyberspace and so on. Leo Strauss might be of use.  But I don't have relevant access. Hence my question way back when before we coupled: "Anyone got the appropriate library access?" Hiding T 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said "at a loss as to where else I might check without investing an inordinate amount of time weeding through false positives." It turns out that my topics of research in school never involved a term as generic as "The City", so normal text searches tended to be quite sufficient for my purposes.  Here, though, it seems you've uncovered a list of works with the two words "the" and "city" in their titles, but I would be amazed if any one of those mentioned addressed this term qua term.  Without more concrete evidence that sources actually exist, I can't support keeping this article around -- and I'm not about to go searching through every book about cities to see if they mention calling one "The City".  Powers T 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't read those books, so forgive me if I choose to base my own opinion on the evidence of my own eyes. I've always preferred empiricism to feelings. Hiding T 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm barking up the wrong tree. Hiding T 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you've managed to thoroughly confuse me. My apologies.  Powers T 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club. I'll throw my apologies into the mix too.  It appears I lost track of the argument halfway through and have been coasting ever since. I'd forgotten, or perhaps not realised, except my first post belies the truth of that statement, that I was arguing for "The City" as opposed to "The city". Yes, there's a lot of sources on "the city" as a concept in fiction and in anthropology. But to write an article sourced from those doesn't necessitate you starting from this article.  Hiding T 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My first impression on reading this article is that it is something of a dictionary definition -- it's about calling a place "The City" -- which would be better served by folding it into City. However, having looked at the second article, I'm unclear as to how that would be done. The latter article discusses the geographical & sociological phenomenon known as a "city", rather than the connotation of calling a place "The City". If someone can show how these two articles could be merged -- or not merged -- I'd be persuaded to vote accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a very sophisticated dictionary definition identifying the various meanings of the phrase "The City" -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:DICDEF - Wikipedia is not a phrase book or dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (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.