Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest municipalities by population


 * 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   merge or redirect. Clearly no consensus to delete. How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

World's largest municipalities by population

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As another user already has stated on the talkpage, this list is "a blatant POV-fork". According to the article, this list should rank cities based on the population in the "city proper". Well, we already have that list, List of cities proper by population. We also have World's largest cities (one of the few properly sourced lists), List of metropolitan areas by population and several other lists, but that is not a problem since they measure different aspects. The list I'm now nominating, however, is just a new version, created last month, of a list that already exists. For the record, the user who created this list appears to have created it after not having had his way in discussions on the talk page of the list he copied and introduced his own views into. Talk:List of cities proper by_population. So to sum it up: this is a copy of an already existing article, created by a user who did not have it his way in the existing article and decided to create his own version. It fills no purpose other than to confuse the reader Jeppiz (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps add that the reason I'm suggesting this page for deletion instead of the other is that the title of the other is better (both lists are about the population of city propers), that the other list has existed for a long time and have been edited by many different users whereas this list is, as already said, almost entirely created by a single user last month. I also feel it would be a severe mistake to merge them, as that would encourage users who don't have it their ways in discussions to create POV-forks to have their POV imposed in the original article after a merge.Jeppiz (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Notable information that is well-referenced. I'm not sure how this article even got nominated. BlueRobe (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I am going to ask that the closing administrator disregard the comment by BlueRobe, (who seems to be Wikipedia mostly to pick fights according to ANI ) as it is obvious that the user did not bother to read the nomination before voting and thus had no idea what s/he was voting for. Nobody is contesting that the subject is notable The article was nominated because it is a copy of an existing article. It is nominated because the article has existed for several years before one user who was dissatisfied with it simply copied it so he could his own changes unopposed. It doesn't change the fact that it already exists and has existed for several years. I have no problem at all with users who oppose the nomination after they have read it, but I find it rather arrogant to go around voting without even bothering to read the nomination first. Jeppiz (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL, give the argumentum ad hominem a rest and calm down. Absurd rants like that help no one. I read the nomination, I checked out the article, and I concluded that a merge (or a keep) is the most appropriate result for this nomination. Don't bunch your knickers at other editors like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum just because they disagree with you. BlueRobe (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I strongly urge editors to vote to keep/merge this article as it now appears (see above) that the primary reason for this nomination is personal to the nominator. I don't know what Jeppiz's problem is, or what really inspired this nomination, but s/he is taking my disagreement with his/her nomination way too seriously, which makes me very suspicious of an ulterior motive. BlueRobe (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some remarks
 * This is rather rich. BlueRobe has several blocks for his uncivil behaviour, and his constant incivility is (more than ten warnings in five days) and his bad behaviour at Wikipedia currently discussed at ANI. I don't know in which way he feels I've been uncivil - pointing out that his vote did not appear to be based on the nomination in any way is a factual remark (right or wrong), not a personal or uncivil one..
 * BlueRobe now claims to have read the nomination, which is great. I would then like to ask why he thinks we should have two different articles, both of which are a list over cities proper by population?
 * Needless to say, BlueRobe's argument that editors should vote "keep" because he thinks I'm being "personal" is strange, to say the least, although characteristics of BlueRobe's behaviour on Wikipedia. Editors should of course vote "keep" if they feel that the article adds to Wikipedia, and "delete" if they feel it doesn't. I have outlined why I think it doesn't; it is a copy of an article that already exists. I welcome any argument for keeping it, despite being a copy, but note that BlueRobe has not yet provided any such argument, just a long list of comments about my supposed motives. That is completely beside the point.Jeppiz (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're ranting and raving. I am disengaging from your pointless personal squabbling. BlueRobe (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On second glance, it appears that Jeppiz has amended my comment. Needless to say, I am unimpressed. Calm down, you angry freak. BlueRobe (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have not amended your comment, simply moved it to the bottom of the page which is a rather standard procedure. As for t your "angry freak" comments, I'm taking them to the ongoing discussion about you at ANI, as this is the the place to discuss the nominated article.Jeppiz (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so long as you're not having a ridiculous over-reaction to someone disagreeing with your nomination for deletion, it's all good ... lol *locks the door*. BlueRobe (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Unnecessary fork of existing article. LK (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to List of cities proper by population. The lists in both articles seem to be basically the same, and the rest of the stuff in the article nominated here for deletion is just redundant garbage. This article is just an unneeded fork. Redirect to the parent article List of cities proper by population. Comment: As for the above bickering, that is just unneeded stinking hot garbage (Sniff, sniff—Pew! :-). [|Retro00064|&#9742;talk|&#x270D;contribs|] 01:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge only the lists (not the rest of the stuff in the article for deletion, which is just redundant garbage). See my comment [way] down the page. [|Retro00064|&#9742;talk|&#x270D;contribs|] 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. We don't need two lists of the same thing. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Take any nfo needed and put them in the appropriate articles, and leave as a redirect. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Deny request for factual misrepresentation. Keep, and possibly merge, pending consensus


 * Why this list is here: As mentioned, there is no shortage of lists of cities by population. However, there are very few lists that answer a simple question: “How many people live within the administrative, legal boundaries of a city?” In other words, what is the true population within the city limits, and not inflated “urban agglomeration” or arbitrary “inner core” numbers? What is the official population the city uses itself, instead of data copied from an outdated list of dubious provenience?


 * List of cities proper by population could do that. After all, the leading demographic institutions of 230 countries of this world agree year by year by written ballot that "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status, usually characterized by some form of local government." However, List of cities proper by population doesn’t stick to that simple definition. If you stick with it, a city many people haven’t heard of and most can’t spell, Chongqing, comes out on top. Huge cities that are broken down into independent Local Government Authorities, such as Lagos, Sidney, or Melbourne, sink into oblivion. Such an outcome is heresy in the eyes of some. In order to “correct” this, some editors of List of cities proper by population resorted to blatant forgery, invented sources that do not exist, and applied arbitrary formulas to data they don’t understand. List of cities proper by population became a mess.  To wit, Beijing, a city of 22 million people, is listed as having 10,123,000 people (not for the city proper, but for “Core districts + inner suburbs” with a fake reference.) Some forgeries were crude, some pretty slick.


 * Attempts to correct this led to edit wars, waged by experienced edit warriors. I was told that I should do my own list of municipalities (as opposed to “cities” …), and this was finally done. As the article says, "This list of municipalities has become necessary because there is a debate whether certain cities should be called cities." World's largest municipalities by population was created, using painstakingly sourced population data, wherever possible sourced from the city, sorry, municipality itself.  In the no good deed goes unpunished dept., this list, created at the request of editors of List of cities proper by population who wanted me off their turf, is now up for annihilation. The editor-demanded nuance between "city" and "municipality" was obviously lost on the requester, who thinks "that the title of the other is better" and that "both lists are about the population of city propers."


 * As for the AFD request: The AFD request is full of factual errors. The list in question wasn’t „created last month,“ it was created in July 2010. It lived in relative peace until now, its data withstood intensive scrutiny. The list is not a “copy of an already existing article,“ as anybody can ascertain who goes to the trouble of comparing the articles, their data, and their scope. It is not "a blatant POV-fork" (a comment made on August 3 …) How can there be POV if one goes to the trouble of researching official data published by municipalities around the world?  The request should be thrown out, based on the factual misrepresentations alone.


 * Back to List of cities proper by population. After the most egregious acts of fraud had been exposed on its talk page, a consensus was reached. Details there, for those who bother to read. Even the editor who had lambasted this article as a "blatant POV fork" was for the consensus agreement, well, he was "willing to acquiesce in it if everyone else agrees." The planned merge fizzled the minute work became involved. Some like to talk and to delete, but shy away from real work. I am still willing to implement the terms of the consensus, and to merge the articles as discussed. But I have been waiting since August 14th for the go ahead. The offer still stands. From reading the AFD request, I get the impression that the requester attempts to torpedo the consensus reached before it gets implemented. The requester is aware of the compromise, he does not mention the compromise in an attempt to mislead other editors. Successfully, as it seems.


 * In the meantime, edits based on official data are highly welcome.


 * This was the short version. A longer version is available on request. It may, however, step on some toes, and expose the true motivation behind the nomination. In light of the discussion above, most already know what would be coming, so I rest my case. BsBsBs (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing to consider:  The requester has a history of defacing articles he does not like. Originally, he had an immense dislike of his current favorite, List of cities proper by population. On July 11,2010, he satirized its intro. The other editors didn't share his sense of humor.


 * On September 21, he gave the same humorous treatment to World's largest municipalities by population. That edit also had a short shelf life. He pouted, left a few not very enlightened tags and suddenly recommended the article for deletion.


 * Possibly that explains why he suddenly likes List of cities proper by population much better, of which he had said on July 11: "Exceptionally bad article, filled with original research. Rewrote parts of the introduction so that it matches the list - this is NOT a list of cities proper by population." Maybe we should delete both? BsBsBs (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Alright, Let's Cut Out The Garbage and Settle This Debate Once and For All. BsBsBs, you are the one who created the article nominated here for deletion. The list sections in both articles appear to be the same. And the rest of the info in your article is pretty much unneeded. What do you have to say to that? Additionally, note where you said above: "On September 21, he gave the same humorous treatment to World's largest municipalities by population. That edit also had a short shelf life. He pouted, left a few not very enlightened tags and suddenly recommended the article for deletion." You were the one who reverted that edit! How are we supposed to trust that?!  This debate is just filled with bickering, arguing, POV disputes, and just rotting, stinking hot garbage. Let's put a stop to all this garbage, OK?! It will be a lot easier to settle this battle if we just give our own opinions without any trash. Regards. [|Retro00064|&#9742;talk|&#x270D;contribs|] 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer: Unless someone has reading comprehension issues, it will quickly become evident that the list is not the same. Use the sort button. If the list would be identical,it would not be there in the first place. Whether the rest of the information is unneeded is in the eye of the beholder. To judge it requires a basic understanding of demography. The article tries to impart some of that arcane knowledge, but obviously, it fails. The core issue remains: There already has been a consensus to merge the lists, and neither article must be deleted until that consensus has been implemented. And you are right, once a discussion degenerates to "rotting, stinking hot garbage," it is better to end it. Taking part in an AFD discussion is akin to sitting on a jury. It comes with a responsibility, and it requires the proper decorum. Nominators should familiarize themselves with WP:Articles for deletion before nominating. Editors who want to take part in the discussion should refer to the rules of engagement beforehand. Uncivilized comments have no place in this discussion.  BsBsBs (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The user who created the article, BsBsBs, has written a long reply to my AfD. Sadly, he also keeps removing all tags from the article in disregard of WP:OWN. It only goes to show that he considers this article his personal pet and will keep reverting edits. As for his reply here, I don't agree with the distinction he tries to make to keep the article (The nominated article clearly states, repeatedly, that is is a list for population by city proper, and that article exists), but he should of course be free to make that argument. I have less time with his many personal insinuations about me, as I don't see how they are related to the case. I've never met BsBsBs before and have no personal grudge here, but I do believe that the article is redundant.  The important thing is that the creator of the article admits, and even states in the article "This list of municipalities has become necessary because there is a debate whether certain cities should be called cities." Disagreement about an existing article is not a reason to create a new one. With all the edit wars and debates going on in many areas, take the recent wars in the Balkans as an example, we would have a bewildering number of articles dealing with exactly the same issue but from different POVs. Yes, it might be difficult to reach a consensus, but a failure to do so is not a reason to create a new article. Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment I would also like to repeat my request for the article to be redirected, not merged. BsBsBs is right to say that I don't think the existing of List of Cities Proper is good, we agree on that. However, this is not about my POV nor about BsBsBs POV. Regardless of own view, the List of Cities Proper is the result of many editors working together for a long time, whereas the article I've nominated is the work of BsBsBs alone. I think that the long established list with many contributors should take precedence over this list, for precisely that reason.Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer WP:Deletion policy describes a list of reasons for deletion. I cannot find "disagreement with the article" on that list. I find, however, a lot of recommended WP:Deletion policy, which apparently are not being considered.


 * Articles_for_deletion recommends to abstain from an AFD discussion if "a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." This appears to be the case here.


 * I am trying not to bore anyone with arcana, but the reason why this list exists is that there is a difference between "municipalities" and "cities." The concepts are explained at length in the article, in city proper and in municipality. I can't help it if some people don't bother to read.


 * In short, a municipality is a generic term for a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status. It is not necessarily a city. A municipality can be anything from a village to a city. In some cases, for instance Tokyo, a municipality consists of several cities. Large Chinese "cities" (which are called "city" in Chinese) are called "municipality" outside of China to make that point. That "there is a debate whether certain cities should be called cities" is not an admission, it is a statement of fact.


 * So this is a list of municipalities, which is a different thing than a list of cities. At least if people are nitpicking. Which they did and do.


 * As for city proper it would also help if you would inform yourself before you ask for the deletion of an article. "City proper" is a technical term. It denotes the area within the corporate limits. As city proper says: "city proper is not limited to a city."


 * Also, World's largest municipalities by population wasn't created because there was disagreement. It was created because some editors of List of cities proper by population requested it.


 * Your request for deletion is based on factually wrong statements, and it comes too late. As stated repeatedly, there has been a consensus amongst the major stakeholders of both List of cities proper by population and World's largest municipalities by population to merge the articles. A fact which you were trying to hide. There even is agreement about the format and the sourcing. The only thing that stands in the way is reduced enthusiasm about doing the work. However, the lists will be merged. Apparently, this is what you are trying to prevent with your AFD. Your request for the articles not to be merged is made in the wrong venue. It is up to the editors to make those decisions and to do the editing work. Many editors in this discussion have recommended a merge, and the stakeholders in both articles had already agreed to that solution.


 * This discussion does not belong here, it belongs to the talk pages of the articles. There, the discussion has already been conducted at great length and it has led to the decision to merge the two articles. BsBsBs (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems as if most of your argument consists of directing personal attacks at me, at my lack of knowledge and at my dishonesty. Saying that I was trying to hide something is clearly only intended to attack me. For the record, I did not find, and I still don't find, any such discussion on the talk page of the article, so I am not trying to "hide" anything. I recommend you for the last time to focus on the article, not on other editors. I can understand that you are upset that an article you have worked on has been nominated for deletion, but to keep attacking me for nominating it is only childish.
 * As for the argument about this list being different from the list of population in cities proper, I quite the very first sentence of this article "This is a non-exhaustive list of the world's most populous municipalities, defined according to the concept of city proper". The headline of the list reads "Municipalities by population (city proper)". And would you please stop removing fact-tags from the article?Jeppiz (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In conclusion, I humbly ask the administrators that
 * No action is taken in this matter for the following reasons:
 * * The request does not fulfill any of the criteria set forth by reasons for deletion
 * * The request is factually incorrect
 * * No attempts have been made to solve the issue in discussion
 * * The alternatives to deletion were not considered
 * * The requester has not sufficiently familiarized himself with the subject matter or the talk pages
 * * The matter had already been solved by a consensus reached among the stakeholders of the two competing articles, and a merge had been agreed upon in August
 * * The requester attempts to preempt and interfere with a consensus decision
 * * To make matters worse, the requester now claims no knowledge of the consensus reached in August
 * * The request is frivolous


 * Thank you BsBsBs (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, I respect BsBsBs's opinions about the article. It also goes without saying that I disagree with them, and I have outlined the reason why above. As for the rest, it might perhaps be a matter for WP:ANI that most of the points that BsBsBs brings up concerns me and BsBsBs unfounded speculations about me, rather than the matter at hand. I was not familiar with the discussion BsBsBs keeps calling a consensus, although I have read it now. A few points striked me:
 * * If it were true that a consensus was reached two months ago, why has no action been taken?
 * * Reading the discussion, I still don't find a consensus.
 * * If a consensus really had been reached to merger this article with the article I claim it is a copy of, why would it be a problem to redirect this page to that very article?Jeppiz (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It does not matter what could be wrong with the nominator when discussing an article for deletion. Instead, Wikipedia policies absolutely matter. When I said to "stop all this garbage", I did not mean "stop the discussion". I meant "stop all the bickering, arguing, POV warring, personal attacks, and just leave our own opinions without any of that garbage in them". And I agree with Jeppiz. A lot of what you have been ranting and raving about is what is bad about Jeppiz. I don't see any links to Wikipedia policies in there, besides the Deletion Policy (which is not the policy that I'm referring to), that explicitly say that this article for deletion should be kept. Jeppiz has a point. Maybe we should send you, BsBsBs, to WP:ANI, and see what the jury there finds you guilty of. The lists in both articles have the same few cities at the top and bottom of the list. The list in List of cities proper by population is shorter (61 cities versus around 76). I am changing my opinion to Merge only the lists, as long as the additional cities in World's largest municipalities by population are backed up by reliable sources. [|Retro00064|&#9742;talk|&#x270D;contribs|] 23:27, 3 October 2010 (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.