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 let it snow, let it snow delete. Jamie^☆S93 22:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century[edit]

List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pointless list that would seem to rely heavily on synthesis of other articles or original research. Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very much would rely on WP:SYN. Also, what is the point? And why the supercalifragalisticexpealong name? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned the idea came from Brasilia#Demographics. What is needed is to expand the list. There are already entries such as List of largest cities throughout history. Montemonte (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we debating another one here? Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up List of largest cities throughout history. I thought you were using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I think I misread you. My apologies. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "largest cities" is a nebulous concept. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is the point? This is for no use and is just complicated. Highest Heights (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I get the idea, although there's really not that much you can do within the scope of this article -- basically, three more entries after 1492 (16th, 17th, and 18th century), and then a debate about what century an old city came about ("8th Century B.C.-- Rome" or whatever). I can forsee that someone might want to do something similar to List of American cities by year of foundation (which is referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.A.) for the "Old World" cities (quite a few were constructed in the 20th century just in the old U.S.S.R.). Or someone could make a (sourced to an almanac) list of fastest growing cities for each decade. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. Also, over 100 characters for an article title is a bit much dont you think?--RadioFan (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Centuries are completely arbitrary chunks of time. Drawn Some (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nominator that it is a "pointless list".--Susan118 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly the worst example of listcruft I've yet seen. Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, that would be List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century, but where at least 48% of structures have 2 stories or more, but do not have more than 5 McDonald's franchises. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, this is the sort of thing that people make fun of Wikipedia for. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But I hope that worrying, about what other people might think, will not deter someone from contributing. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unmaintainable, and hardly useful for anyone wanting to study urbanism. Ottre 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft and per Drawn Some . feydey (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong in invoking WP:SNOW here? Seems like I've been doing that a lot. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, clear listcruft and too incomplete to be of any use. Tris2000 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which of the speedy deletion criterion does this fall under? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:IINFO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN – besides WP:SNOW, clear trivial intersection. At least I now know what Brasilia and Chicago have in common just in case, say, I go on a game show like Jeopardy! someday. MuZemike 03:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN and also WP:DAFT. Complete listcruft. Also suggest snowballing this. Firestorm ^Talk 03:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What a WP:FREAKY title. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2009 (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.