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.
This is obvious
statistical trivia which appears to have been compiled as
an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't think the World Atlas took anything from Wikipedia. Just access the census website or other government sources for the same information.
DreamFocus05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (often provided by counties and states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. And unlike city entries, outside small land annexations here and there, usually the sizes of American counties never change, so this is pretty solid and unchanging statistical data. Nate•(
chatter)02:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time.
Trackinfo (
talk)
02:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Did some searching, surprisingly, couldn't find much to substantiate this. Seems to fail LISTN with a lack of sources discussing county size across the country in a comparative way a la SIGCOV. World Atlas is the closest we have, but its
not a really top tier source (ex-passion project blog). US Census data on its own is basically a primary source, and articles should not be built solely around various census facts without other secondary sources demonstrating significance. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that
this was posted to
WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was
later removed).
TompaDompa (
talk)
16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Not an accusation. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to
WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story".
TompaDompa (
talk)
16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This is something seen as notable by the
World Almanac, and the information is important enough to be listed in all articles for counties, then it obviously is notable enough for a list on Wikipedia.
DreamFocus04:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Wikipedia:Five pillars, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, where it states, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (bold emphasis mine). This data is encyclopedic relative to the core principles of what Wikipedia is all about. North America100006:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems wholly encyclopedic as noted above. NLIST simply describes one type of list that is generally not deleted; it does not provide any authority for deletion. As others have pointed out, other major reference works have maintained comparable lists. So this list would seem to "satisfy" NLIST even if we read that guideline upside-down as the nom urges us to. The nom's claim that the discussion of land area vs. surface area makes this list OR is risible, since that is an entirely routine concern with area information, and the list creator wisely included both forms of information in the table so that readers could make their own decisions about which measure of area is more important. I have no opinion on whether the list should be somehow merged into
List of United States counties and county equivalents (although I think that might be more challenging than it appears). But in any event that doesn't require the deletion process. --
Visviva (
talk)
02:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge to
County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area. I agree with the keep voters that this is valid encyclopedic information that is not merely trivia and certainly not original research, but I question the need for a stand-alone article that lists the top 100. I think expanding the County statistics section to the top 20 could be an appropriate cutoff. This seems like a better target than the overall list as linked by
Visviva and
Scottywong.
Reywas92Talk05:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per discussion which builds the case well. When a page has this many Keeps and this many view (averaging 234 views a day) it means that from a significant point-of-view the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Delete "voters" should realize that since a large Keep viewpoint exists that also translates to the probable percentage of readers who would enjoy or use the page, benefiting the project. Everyone has a tendency to think that their point of view is correct and universal - not so, and this page falls well within the shadow of Keep.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
This is obvious
statistical trivia which appears to have been compiled as
an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't think the World Atlas took anything from Wikipedia. Just access the census website or other government sources for the same information.
DreamFocus05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (often provided by counties and states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. And unlike city entries, outside small land annexations here and there, usually the sizes of American counties never change, so this is pretty solid and unchanging statistical data. Nate•(
chatter)02:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time.
Trackinfo (
talk)
02:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Did some searching, surprisingly, couldn't find much to substantiate this. Seems to fail LISTN with a lack of sources discussing county size across the country in a comparative way a la SIGCOV. World Atlas is the closest we have, but its
not a really top tier source (ex-passion project blog). US Census data on its own is basically a primary source, and articles should not be built solely around various census facts without other secondary sources demonstrating significance. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that
this was posted to
WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was
later removed).
TompaDompa (
talk)
16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Not an accusation. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to
WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story".
TompaDompa (
talk)
16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This is something seen as notable by the
World Almanac, and the information is important enough to be listed in all articles for counties, then it obviously is notable enough for a list on Wikipedia.
DreamFocus04:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Wikipedia:Five pillars, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, where it states, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (bold emphasis mine). This data is encyclopedic relative to the core principles of what Wikipedia is all about. North America100006:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems wholly encyclopedic as noted above. NLIST simply describes one type of list that is generally not deleted; it does not provide any authority for deletion. As others have pointed out, other major reference works have maintained comparable lists. So this list would seem to "satisfy" NLIST even if we read that guideline upside-down as the nom urges us to. The nom's claim that the discussion of land area vs. surface area makes this list OR is risible, since that is an entirely routine concern with area information, and the list creator wisely included both forms of information in the table so that readers could make their own decisions about which measure of area is more important. I have no opinion on whether the list should be somehow merged into
List of United States counties and county equivalents (although I think that might be more challenging than it appears). But in any event that doesn't require the deletion process. --
Visviva (
talk)
02:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge to
County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area. I agree with the keep voters that this is valid encyclopedic information that is not merely trivia and certainly not original research, but I question the need for a stand-alone article that lists the top 100. I think expanding the County statistics section to the top 20 could be an appropriate cutoff. This seems like a better target than the overall list as linked by
Visviva and
Scottywong.
Reywas92Talk05:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per discussion which builds the case well. When a page has this many Keeps and this many view (averaging 234 views a day) it means that from a significant point-of-view the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Delete "voters" should realize that since a large Keep viewpoint exists that also translates to the probable percentage of readers who would enjoy or use the page, benefiting the project. Everyone has a tendency to think that their point of view is correct and universal - not so, and this page falls well within the shadow of Keep.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)reply
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.