| rdfs:comment
| - A notable topic, if it were possible to actually write such an article. However, it is not actually possible to make estimations like this, except in rare instances. "An article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" and there is no accepted knowledge about this subject. Most of the sources are arbitrary estimates and the one major source, cited over 100 times, is actually pseudoscience written by an obvious crank. WP:SYNTH all the way through, similar to the recently deleted page List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. Shii (tock) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
|
| abstract
| - A notable topic, if it were possible to actually write such an article. However, it is not actually possible to make estimations like this, except in rare instances. "An article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" and there is no accepted knowledge about this subject. Most of the sources are arbitrary estimates and the one major source, cited over 100 times, is actually pseudoscience written by an obvious crank. WP:SYNTH all the way through, similar to the recently deleted page List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. Shii (tock) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep m'encarta (t) 00:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep. The estimates of Tertius Chandler can certainly be challenged. Removing the article is not the right way about it. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC). Updated 08:25 20 June 2012 (UTC).
* For both of you why? AFD is not a vote. Secret account 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete obvious original research that doesn't really intercept with each other except for the timeframe and no clear inclusion criteria or what exactly an "urban community site" means. Secret account 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Weak Keep. Topic is notable, but article needs some discussion of the sources and possible unreliability of the estimates. Chandler is a notable source even if a crank on some other issues. Not WP:SYNTH as it is just a list of numbers and doesn't advance any position. Possible original research as sources may be unreliable; adding more sources might alleviate this problem. Taliban fatality reports was deleted mainly because it was news, so is not relevant to this discussion. CodeTheorist (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC) "Chandler is a notable source even if a crank on some other issues." Is there any evidence for this? It seems many of his figures are totally wrong, and were fabricated. Also, isn't this article essentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Shii (tock) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC) According to Modelski (link): "... the work of Tertius Chandler (1987) that has now become a basic reference for students of the evolution of the world system (see i.a. Wilkinson 1992-3, Chase-Dunn and Willard 1993; Bosworth 1995)." Seems pretty notable to me. Can you provide any sources for the alleged fabrication? The topic seems interesting and worth including in WP; it just needs improving. Adding some discussion at the top explaining the origin of the statistics would help avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm changing my recommendation to keep. CodeTheorist (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep I held off commenting on this in the hope that a better justification for deletion would emerge, but here goes. 1. It is agreed that the topic is notable. 2. The sources are not all from Chandler. 3. Most articles are, and ideally should be, drawn from different sources, and WP:SYNTH does not prohibit that in any way. 4. Books have been written about what constituted a city at different periods, and the title seems a reasonable attempt at arriving at a description appropriate across time and place. As a notable topic in its own right WP:INDISCRIMINATE cannot apply. 5. We cannot delete an article, with great respect to the nominator, on the unsupported grounds that the source of some of the information was a crank or dishonest when he is described elsewhere as a reliable source. This would open WP up to all sorts of academic tit for tat behaviour. If there are reliable sources offering different figures in particular cases, or questioning whether a place was indeed urbanised at the relevant period, they can be incorporated in the article. --AJHingston (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)