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 no consensus. I was very close to closing this AfD with consensus to delete, due to notability concerns per WP:NLIST. The article itself contains no references to sources that discuss the topic of US cities and their areas, and why the area delineated by their borders is relevant or significant. The vast majority of this discussion didn't focus on finding or identifying sources that could be used to demonstrate the notability of this topic, which is, of course, required in order for any article to exist. However, towards the very bottom of the discussion, User:Newimpartial made a good faith effort to find a few sources. While these sources are somewhat tenuous in my opinion, I believe that they are just far enough over the line to cast doubt on whether this topic is non-notable, and push this discussion into "no consensus" territory. My advice for the editors working on this article would be to expand your search for sources that discuss the grouping of US cities by land area and include them in the article. Otherwise, this article will be at risk of being nominated for deletion again in a couple months' time (which, if it happens, should focus on a deeper analysis of the available sources to demonstrate notability). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States cities by area[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

List of United States cities by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is obvious statistical trivia. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, particularly in cases like this where the only source is the WP:PRIMARY data from the US census. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Using this logic, most of the "List of ... by population" articles should also be deleted, which is absurd. This list, for instance, averages almost 900 views per day, so it used a lot. Also, WP:PRIMARY doesn't forbid use of primary sources, stating in particular 3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, which describes how the census info is being used here. Indyguy (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason. Population, unlike area, is at least usually a straightforward number (one can say X people live within the City of London, Y within the London urban area, and Z within the metropolitan area); and is one for which sources can be readily found (ex. [1]); and which tends to at least be correlated with other factors (economic, social, ...). Area? Sitka, Alaska and Seattle (both on the list) seem to me pretty much like the textbook example of apples and oranges. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". A trivial statistical intersection might be interesting to people interested in that kind of stuff, but that has never been a standard for inclusion.

As for the primary sourcing, the reason I highlighted this is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is usually a summary of existing, secondary sources, not data collated from original primary sources. Anybody can go through US census data and come up with random statistical intersections. That is not sufficient reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia.. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Trivia indeed; these aren't even metropolitan statistical areas or some other population-based grouping, for which a list by area might actually have some use (not saying that should exist either). I could not find a source discussing city areas in a fashion equating, as RandomCanadian notes, tiny towns and huge cities. Funny fact, though. Ovinus (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (which are often provided by the cities and the states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. Nate • (chatter) 02:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The data being correct does not make it encyclopedic. Basic information being noted in the individual cities' articles does not mean a list of it is appropriate. Wikipedia is not the US census database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list in particular seems to fall foul of “listings of unexplained statistics”— city “borders” seem pretty arbitrary, with very small towns in Alaska being “huge” and most big cities being “tiny”. Not sure how this is useful beyond trivia and specialized research, neither of which we cater to. Dronebogus (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is what an encyclopedia should have. Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. The Census data is not in doubt as being accurate. Listing the size of the largest cities according to it, and giving information about them in an easy to sort table, belongs here. Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articles. Dream Focus 13:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how this is even relevant. Anyone can go through the Census data and spin out some random statistical intersection. WP:BUTITEXISTS; or "it's true"; are not valid reasons to keep it. Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articles I fail to see what one would learn form this, except maybe answers to (ironically, since we're talking of "pop culture") trivia questions and some comparisons between big apples (yep, the Big Apple's on this list too) and random places in Alaska. Readers don't learn anything from lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; and merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument would be compelling if there were a general or specialized encyclopedia, almanac, or gazetteer (the US Census is none of these) which has this list or something similar to it; I doubt there is one besides Wikipedia and its mirrors. There is also a difference between extracting data from a census and extracting data from a less general ranking or list of cities. Ovinus (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We need a WikiAlmanac at this point, and also maybe to informally topic-ban Dream Focus from AfD due to terrible party-line keep rationales. Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Indeed, cities in Alaska are large, but that doesn't make this indiscriminate or trivial. It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl. It's a perfectly reasonable compilation of a superlative of encyclopedic data. If anything this could add a population density column. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl. Without reliable sources to support this, this is nothing more than WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Badly fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS – from the WP:GLOBAL perspective, it resembles a theoretical "List of Nebraska soccer players by height". — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, re: Wikipedia:Five pillars invoked by User: Dream Focus. Gnomatique (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NLIST.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While countries are indeed compared as regards size, cities are hardly ever, because the current administrative area is rather irrelevant in city ranking. I thus find your comparison a bit misleading. Just because we compare mountains by height, it doesn't mean we should have a "List of US cities ranked by tallest building". — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. E.g., urban geographers and demographers, urban planners and those interested in the relationship of size and population and their synergistic effects. This is a view from 50,000 feet, and aids comparisons and analysis. For example, the relatively large size of Detroit, combined with a markedly downward population shift has political and economic consequences. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS, and city boundaries are often decided inconsistently. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No SIGCOV in RS covering the different land areas of various cities (which, for the record, change very frequently due to annexations, etc.). -Indy beetle (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of secondary coverage. It's not particularly useful to compare a combined city-county government with a population of 1000 to a major city of 1 million. That's why we have List of largest cities by area which compares the size of urban areas regardless of where the actual boundaries may be drawn. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. I had already posted here days before that happened. Dream Focus 16:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not an accusation, against you or anyone else. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the boundaries of cities is an historical and legal issue. They are subject to change. And it is highly variable across the country. Metropolitan statistical areas are an analytical tool. All that being recognized, I don't think that is a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this is the kind of list that many paper encyclopedias contained before Wikipedia put most of them out of business, but I'm struggling to find any use for it. The "by area" just asks for cities in Alaska to be at the top, because many of them incorporate small centres with very large areas of barely inhabited land, and it was certainly no surprise when I just looked and saw them there. Along with the American habit of calling every town a city this just seems to be, as I saw someone write about another topic recently, a nothingburger. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is clearly a WP:DISCRIMINATE list of information. Most of the arugments I read above are that its "indiscriminate" (it's not, it's clearly defined) and that it isn't useful. Well... useful isn't really a measure that we use for notability--but I found the article and this discussion because I was looking for a list of US cities by land area. Seems to meet the measure set forth in the essay WP:IMPACT to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clear WP:NLIST pass. Many of the Delete votes represent conceptual objections to the list (basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT), rather than being based on policy. Many reliable, secondary sources discuss the content of the list (cities by land area). Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you perhaps list one of those many sources that compare cities by area? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the first academic paper that I could find that not paywalled and follows a related approach (its authors choose to present the population and the density but not the area used to calculate density). And here are a couple of journalistic sources offering analysis directly based on land area comparisons between cities: [2] [3]. I only scratched the surface; I have no doubt there is much more out there (some of it paywalled, of course). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the first paper explicitly states that it Core Based Statistical Area and not the "city area". The second link is borderline relevant, although some may argue that it's a "nothingburger" that does not venture beyond raw statistical data ("Oh, there are now cities with a bigger area than Cleveland even though they have smaller populations"). The third link is again unconnected with this present list (it discusses population densities). Does it indeed show that we need to have a separate ranking list on Wikipedia, or it's enough to have area/population data in individual articles? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you are misreading the first paper. Tables 3 and 4 each consist of three lists: one based on metropolitan area, a second based on urbanized area, and a third based on principal city area. The content of this WP article corresponds to the city area used for the calculation underlying the third column of Table 4.

  Also, it is inaccurate to say that the third link is again unconnected with this present list. It provides the land area of each city it lists and also explains how a city's land area impacts density (using the comparison of San Francisco to Jacksonville).

  You have given me an excellent example of why I don't normally WP:SATISFY requests for sources at AfD: when I do give relevant sources, it is typical for editors to misread them (as you have done) or dismiss them as a "nothingburger" (as you have also done). My prior belief - that people asking for sample sources at AfD are typically making a rhetorical move rather than, you know, actually asking for sources - is unfortunately confirmed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Area of populated places is a significant topic. pbp 22:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the excellent arguments presented by Kashmiri and the lacking arguments given for keep so far. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2022 (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.