- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Number of urban areas by country ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entire article is dedicated to a single source. More verification is not possible because the entire premise of the article is based on what Demographia deems important.
The single source is a private company that appears to be the output of a single person. There's no evidence of peer review, or any kind of editorial oversight that makes a good secondary source. This is basically using wikipedia as a blog. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Shellwood ( talk) 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be original research. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I like the idea of this page, but it's entirely based on what looks like a single person's personal website?
[1] doesn't instill confidence in it's authenticity. If there was an alternative source like the UN then I would say keep. In fact, I would say demographia shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all, but I don't know how to ask that.
Mattximus (
talk)
00:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you on that, and it's unfortunately proliferated throughout wikipedia. For example, the same Demographia source is cited in the lede for New York City (and there's currently a talk page discussion about whether or not to remove that). Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 14:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will participate there. Someone's blog does not really belong on wikipedia, especially when the US census produces excellent data. Mattximus ( talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed, this does look like original research and unreliable. Equine-man ( talk) 07:45, 24 January 2023 (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.
- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Number of urban areas by country ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entire article is dedicated to a single source. More verification is not possible because the entire premise of the article is based on what Demographia deems important.
The single source is a private company that appears to be the output of a single person. There's no evidence of peer review, or any kind of editorial oversight that makes a good secondary source. This is basically using wikipedia as a blog. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Shellwood ( talk) 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be original research. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I like the idea of this page, but it's entirely based on what looks like a single person's personal website?
[1] doesn't instill confidence in it's authenticity. If there was an alternative source like the UN then I would say keep. In fact, I would say demographia shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all, but I don't know how to ask that.
Mattximus (
talk)
00:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you on that, and it's unfortunately proliferated throughout wikipedia. For example, the same Demographia source is cited in the lede for New York City (and there's currently a talk page discussion about whether or not to remove that). Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 14:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will participate there. Someone's blog does not really belong on wikipedia, especially when the US census produces excellent data. Mattximus ( talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed, this does look like original research and unreliable. Equine-man ( talk) 07:45, 24 January 2023 (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.