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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group urban[edit]

Group urban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A term created by "The Commercial Press" of China, that only seems to be used in publications by that publisher. No independent indication of notability. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more independent descriptions are included. This concept is widely accepted by Chinese media, and widely used in urban planning in China. Also it is in the textbooks of geography in China. It is a special concept developed to suit the special urban development derived from complicated administrative issues. Groverlynn (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: Groverlynn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case, you shouldn't have tossed Budapest into the mix: "the cities was (sic) merged from Buda and Pest, along the two sides of Donau River," which is most assuredly not an example of this Chinese urban merger concept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:SYNTH. I've looked at the three references we can access and they all seem to be talking about urban groups in different senses (and one is a tertiary source, an encyclopedia, which may not be considered a reliable source.) I'll keep a watch on this, but I don't know that we have a distinct concept here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- seems to be derived from a single paper, and the article quality is poor so WP:TNT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.