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. Views are split between keep, merge and delete and I find it unlikely an agreement is going to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of the largest counties in the United States by area[edit]

List of the largest counties in the United States 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 which appears to have been compiled as an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Doesn't pass WP:LISTN and is trivia, although less so than the counties article. There is [1], but it seems to be taken from this list. Ovinus (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the World Atlas took anything from Wikipedia. Just access the census website or other government sources for the same information. Dream Focus 05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Just a list with no sources. Does not pass WP:LISTN TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (often provided by counties and 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. And unlike city entries, outside small land annexations here and there, usually the sizes of American counties never change, so this is pretty solid and unchanging statistical data. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The data being correct does not make it encyclopedic. Basic information being noted in the county's articles does not mean a list of it is appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Appears to be yet another list cruft. Azuredivay (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 02:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area shows the top ten. This article shows 106 although 103 and 105 are missing from the list. Dream Focus 06:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meets GNG? How, and do you mean NLIST? Also, be mindful of where "WP:ITSUSEFUL" goes... -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Did some searching, surprisingly, couldn't find much to substantiate this. Seems to fail LISTN with a lack of sources discussing county size across the country in a comparative way a la SIGCOV. World Atlas is the closest we have, but its not a really top tier source (ex-passion project blog). US Census data on its own is basically a primary source, and articles should not be built solely around various census facts without other secondary sources demonstrating significance. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

  A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. Dream Focus 16:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not an accusation. 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[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Putting up the template records that fact, and is ethically required by the project. Apparently someone forgot to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: At one time, the World Almanac had a list of the largest counties by area. pbp 23:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This is something seen as notable by the World Almanac, and the information is important enough to be listed in all articles for counties, then it obviously is notable enough for a list on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 04:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, where it states, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (bold emphasis mine). This data is encyclopedic relative to the core principles of what Wikipedia is all about. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or merge - It would seem far more efficient to refactor the sortable table in List of United States counties and county equivalents to include a column for land area, so that the reader can easily find the largest counties, the smallest counties, the median county, the largest county in a particular state, the smallest county in a particular state, or whatever other statistic they're looking for. This would be far more efficient than creating a bunch of separate list articles like List of smallest counties in the United States by area, List of largest counties in Texas by area, List of smallest counties in Oregon by area, List of largest counties in the United States by population, List of smallest counties in the United States by population, etc., etc., etc. Make one big sortable table, and let the reader manipulate it to find what they're looking for. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, seems wholly encyclopedic as noted above. NLIST simply describes one type of list that is generally not deleted; it does not provide any authority for deletion. As others have pointed out, other major reference works have maintained comparable lists. So this list would seem to "satisfy" NLIST even if we read that guideline upside-down as the nom urges us to. The nom's claim that the discussion of land area vs. surface area makes this list OR is risible, since that is an entirely routine concern with area information, and the list creator wisely included both forms of information in the table so that readers could make their own decisions about which measure of area is more important. I have no opinion on whether the list should be somehow merged into List of United States counties and county equivalents (although I think that might be more challenging than it appears). But in any event that doesn't require the deletion process. -- Visviva (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The core topic is verifiable, given by the U.S. census, and it might well be worth noting that [i]t is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. The nominator bizarrely takes issue with the fact that the article has a methodological selection criteria, despite the fact that we encourage lists to not be overly broad. This sort of list is something that is standard in the old print editions of the World Almanac and is regularly reported by the U.S. census; framing this as "statistical trivia" is quite odd in my opinion. And there are indeed reliable sources that explicitly frame this sort of thing as worth including, beyond the raw census data. The American Counties, for example, provides a detailed methodology and list of the 100 largest (and smallest) U.S. counties by land area, which seems to show interest in this sort of thing as recently as 2013. I do think that the page could be updated (The U.S. Gazeteer files are updated with county land area and sea area as of 2021). And routine calculations (like adding land area + sea area = total area) are not WP:OR. This sort of material improves Wikipedia and, if there exists some poorly phrased rule that would prevent us from fulfilling our core mission of creating an encyclopedia that combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers by making us delete basic and fundamental lists of encyclopedic information like this, we should ignore it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect/merge to County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area. I agree with the keep voters that this is valid encyclopedic information that is not merely trivia and certainly not original research, but I question the need for a stand-alone article that lists the top 100. I think expanding the County statistics section to the top 20 could be an appropriate cutoff. This seems like a better target than the overall list as linked by Visviva and Scottywong. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep per discussion which builds the case well. When a page has this many Keeps and this many view (averaging 234 views a day) it means that from a significant point-of-view the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Delete "voters" should realize that since a large Keep viewpoint exists that also translates to the probable percentage of readers who would enjoy or use the page, benefiting the project. Everyone has a tendency to think that their point of view is correct and universal - not so, and this page falls well within the shadow of Keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.