Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban lifestyle

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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban lifestyle

Pretty close to patent nonsense, the bits that aren't total nonsense read like an attack against the articles subject. Almost certianly can be worked into some other article as blurb or something--205.188.117.69 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article was vandalised in this edit. Nominating the entire article for deletion is not the way to fix vandalism! Uncle G 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a pretty reasonable point, still seems a bit lacking in terms of content, could be merged into somthing else without too much trouble--205.188.117.74 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Still basically just a dicdef with a little bit of disparaging content at the end "as generally elevated crime and pollution rates" which is mostly false anyway--205.188.117.74 00:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please do not conflate dictionary articles with stub encyclopaedia articles. The two are not the same thing. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone can create some citations backing up some of this information. Do articles exist describing other lifesytles (ex., the cowboy lifestyle)? I didn't find any, and this just seems to be a stub that is propogating stereotypes of urban life. will381796 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please actually look for sources yourself when discussing articles at AFD. An article is only unverifiable if it cites no sources on the subject, and your best efforts to find sources yourself have failed. It is not sufficient just to look at Wikipedia to see whether other articles exist. Indeed, the "If article X then article Y." argument is a fallacious one. Please look for sources. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears in its current form to be just a generalisation about how millions of people live- unless this can be shown to be a specific term used in a specific way in some documents, rather than just a stereotype, there's no more need for this article than for an article generalising about what it's like to live in the countryside. Robotforaday 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please actually attempt to determine whether the documents that you want exist. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• A small amount of research using Google Scholar turns up plenty of source material on the subject of an urban lifestyle, including studies of its medical impact and the travel behaviour of people with that lifestyle. The further reading section of the article contains just a few of them. The article requires significant improvement, but the sources exist, and this is why it is a stub. Deletion is not the way to fix a stub such as this. See our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The way to fix the article, and any "mostly false" content in it, is to change the content to be verifiable, using the many sources on the subject that appear to exist, citing them as one goes. Keep. Uncle G 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You might misunderstand me. I am sure there is a huge amount of published material on what might be termed the "urban lifestyle", just as there is a whole pile of material on what might be termed "country living". The question is whether the term refers to a generalisable phenomenon in the way that the article currently suggests it does. To add an article in which one says everything possible about what it's like to live in a city is perhaps a bit of a stretch- I would say that it either drags us into the "random collection of information" zone or, otherwise, would simply be a statement of a stereotype- for which there is no place on WP. However, if this refers to a specific term used in a specific way (I haven't yet seen any evidence that it does), then that is a different matter. Robotforaday 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful and redirect to Urban culture, which is a lamentably neglected stub. -- Visviva 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See also: Urban lifestyles, Urban tribe, Urban etc......., multiple articles on the same subject, none of them seem to be more than lists of sterotypes of varied lengths. Not to mention, if anything, this article has gotten worse since it's been improved, the vandalised version might actually have been better than the current one--205.188.117.74 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• It seems no one actually closed this before it passed into the archive--172.129.200.208 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,172.129.200.208 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR. Nonsense. C56C 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — The name doesn't make sense (there's no actual real definition of an urban lifestyle), and it seems like someone who's from a rural area and doesn't like cities too much. Not only not NPOV, but also if wikified, would be extremely hard to salvage. I think City is good enough, there's no need for this article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. This reads like an essay about how bad urban lifestyle is. JIP | Talk 06:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP and C56C ST47 11:22, 23 August 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.