Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global city

Non-notable concept, although the individual cites are notable. No real reason to believe all the references (which suggest notability) are referring to the same definition, categorization, or list. Possible copyright infringement. (The list and criteria are copyrighted unless that copyright is explitly waived.) Possible alternative actions would be a merge to Loughborough University or a move to Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network, somehow destroying (at least) this redirect, if not all the redirects pointing into it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC) See below — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

• Conditional Keep This article comes across as an advertising platform for the benefit of a specific university group and an associated conference. Much or even most of the content should be removed as insufficiently notable for the weight given to it. Barely any mention is given to the "seminal work" which coined the term compared with the Loughborough content, and there is a lack of broader discourse references. Having said that, I think the term does have currency in geography, and I would support a keep based on a rewrite addressing the issues. If there is serious copyright infringement too, than the rewrite needs to be even more comprehensive. If it doesn't occur, than I vote weak delete Bwithh 21:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep I'd like too see a rewrite of the article since the subject is very intresting. --Krm500 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'd go along with the above: either rewrite substantially, to get rid of the "world cities research begins and ends in Loughborough" "undue weight" (if not rampant self-promotion) issues, or else rescope and rename it as a GaWC article, and start world city and/or global city from a clean slate. Alai 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The concept is notable, and the term 'global city' is thrown around a lot in economics, political science, geography and international studies. However, I agree with Bwithh and Krm that there needs to be some changes; I'm not convinced that Loughborough University has a monopoly on the concept so I believe the article should be a bit more comprehensive, offering different ways of conceptualizing what precisely constitutes a global city by looking to other sources outside GaWC. --The Way 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep. per the way. But. No need to invet an Original Research there. GaWC is ver very accurate for now. If some new rating will appear from another famous research company it should be added. Not replaced. As of now - leave it as it is. Elk Salmon 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Change description of !vote to Keep if cleaned up. I didn't say WP:OR, as GaWC is notable enough. However, I cannot do the cleanup. "Leave it as it is" is not an option. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (ec)I don't believe anyone's arguing for original research, just toning down the rewriting of the history of the concept to make it entirely about GaWC. The current version just about implies they invented the terminology. Different "ratings" are another matter entirely, and not at all the point. Alai 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • there is no any other reliable source that could provide own point of view. therefore no need for changes until new sources will appear. as of name article - it is settled term. there is no necessary to drop it. Elk Salmon 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Um, I'm pretty sure that GaWC doesn't have an intellectual monopoly on this term. It may not even be a major player in the discourse. Bwithh 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: We chose to use the global city concept at Version 0.5 to guide us in what cities to select for our CD release (we wanted 100-200 of the most important cities). We are working through our list at Wikipedia:Version 0.5/Global cities, and in reviewing them (I've read ~100) I'd guess I've seen reference to this page (more usually as a "world city") on about half of them. I can accept that the article should reflect the consensus view of this concept. Is the Loughborough definition considered the most authoritative (I have no clue)? If so, there's no harm in emphasizing that, but other significant viewpoints should definitely be represented. Walkerma 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that that's an argument from respectively no evidence at all, and purely internal evidence. Nor does it address the current contents, which while not strictly a matter for AfD, seems to be the predominant concern. Alai 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - this article has a place but the GaWC data should be chopped considerably, especially as it don't even purport to list Global cities generally, only by financial criteria. The concept is a subjective and woolly one and attempts to quantify it are therefore inherently POV, even if they are referenced to the hilt. SteveRwanda 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This is a notable concept which has much currency in contexts unrelated to Loughborough University. Merchbow 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - AfD should not be used as an alternative to a clean-up tag. - jc37 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Just because something is a theory or not commonly accepted as the standard shouldn't be the reason for the subject to be disregarded, but should just be noted as such. Other issues such as POV is not the issue to be discussed here. --Wirbelwind 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after cleanup per above. -- ExpImp^talkcon 11:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I liked the subject.Rectify any errors but do keep the article.Mahawiki 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "I liked the subject" is not a valid reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think the article is salvagable, but I wouldn't mind being proved wrong. I also hope the closing admin notes that almost all the votes so far are "Keep, but cleanup", and wouldn't block another AfD if cleanup doesn't happen within a few months. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that there is something that needs to be removed (cleaned up) from the article. There are some old data, but it's noted that it is old. Table with cities of most is not an OR. GaWC data of course should not be deleted. It has fully verified source. Elk Salmon 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (unqualified) - Cleanup needs are a separate issue and apply to a large portion of Wikipedia articles. The concept and subject is valid. A cleanup requirement is not sufficient basis for removal. --Serge 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, the fact that this concept is relevant in a number of fields of study is sufficient to keep this article from being deleted, period. The fact that it may be in need of changes, even substantial ones, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it should be deleted. Someone could make the case to add a POV tag or a cleanup tag, but these are not problems to be addressed here; these separate tags exist for those problems which alone implies that such articles are not ones that warrant deletion. --The Way 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The subject itself is important and has been the subject of many academic texts. The current over reliance on a single source means the article should be expanded not deleted. --Polaron | Talk 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Fsiler 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conclusion. I suspect the case could be considered as closed now. Absolute consensus against of deleting the article. Elk Salmon 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I disagree, although I'm sure it could be closed under WP:SNOW. There are too many "Conditional Keep" votes to say that the consensus is "keep". As I said above in one of the comments, I don't think an acceptable article could be written, and there is consensus that this article is not acceptable under this name. The concept and GaWC's interpretation of it must be separated.
    • look at votes. there is total consensus that article should not change its name or be removed. Elk Salmon 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to continue. 14 to keep, 1 to delete. Absolute consensus.
8 - to keep without changes (with notofications that cleanup leads to POV).
6 - to keep and cleanup (not all said what exactly).
1 - to delete
AfD tag removed.Elk Salmon 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper removal of the AfD tag reverted. Further comments, though the article starts with: <!-- PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING: * Consult http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html for the point ranking. * Do NOT arbitrarily add cities or move them around.[[Image:Example.jpg]][[Image:Example.jpg]] * The images on this pages are sorted by 1. Number of points 2. Alphabetically for equal Number of points -->

Unless that is removed, the article must be moved. The name is wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin. The result is a consensus against the deletion of the article - 14 vs 1. Case is closed. Article should not be moved as well. The article is based on backed up and verified sources. Your personal opinion is OR. Sources are not. Elk Salmon 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Afd does not close until an administrator closes it. The AfD template should not be altered by anyone until the AfD discussion has been properly closed by an admin using the closure format. AfDs cannot be closed by non-admins, and should not be closed on the basis of a 14-1 advantage or even 15-1 including my vote). DJR (T) 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok if there is a real case. But look - there are 0 votes for deletion. It's rater - there is no case. But ok, i'll wait for admin. Elk Salmon 12:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP common usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 October 2006.

• Weak keep - The problem with this article is that the term "global city" is a very important one in terms of usage in human geography, (development) economics and wider social sciences. To this degree, it is important that Wikipedia has an article about the terminology. However, it is an incredibly POV term and its usage naturally sees individuals wanting to "big up" their city - a look at the page's history illustrates countless edits to this degree. GaWC are the only electronic source that attempt to actually define the term, and thus can provide a definitive list of "global cities". It would be nice if there were other sources so that this article could take a more generalised approach, but they do not seem to be readily available, and hence why the article has taken its present form of regurgitated information from the source. Changes could be made, but it is essential that the article remains neutral, and this cannot be done unless based on external sources. DJR (T) 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination. Replace my recommendation to move and/or cleanup. I'll submit a move request when this AfD is closed. (I don't think it's fair for me to close the AfD myself. Also, I'm not sure "conditional keep" counts as a "keep" for the purpose of a speedy close.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Read all comments. Majority are against of deletion or moving. Also i'll say - it's not a prerogative of a poll. The article content is based on fully backed up and verified sources. Only i can think now that you have something personal against it. Just drop it. Backed up articles cannot be moved just because of personal feeling. It's OR. Elk Salmon 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You wrote most of the comments. The majority seem to be requesting a major rewrite (eliminating the lists) or a move. If the editors had noticed the comment in the header, it might have been a larger majority. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No need for sarcasm. There are at least 18 votes now. Most means most of their comment. Also. I'll repeat, what DJR has said already. I can rephrase. If you want to expand an article you are welcome to do it without any polls. But you should write new sections only basing on verified sources. In other way it will be original research. Also - you cannot delete some sections, even via poll, just because you have some personal dislike to them. They are based on verified sources thus have all rights to be represented in this article. Elk Salmon 13:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - As per DJR above. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keepThe difference between "global" city and "world" city is pure semantics. I don't have a preference, but when I type "world cities" in the search box I get nothing. "World city" redirects to tthis page.
• keep and clean (I support the deletion of categories such as "Beta world cities") this article is affecting the quality of wikipedia, some city articles are using this a a reference to justify some things. The article is POV, but should not be deleted. If some other study from other university confirs this then it would be a proper reference. Add another studies to the article.--Pedro 21:46, 21 October 2006 (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.