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

World's largest municipalities by population

World's largest municipalities by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 [1]) 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[2]. 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)