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. On the basis that it *could* be fixed - but it shouldn't be left in this state for too long. Keeping for now to allow improvement - but I'll re-AfD it myself if further improvement and sources are not forthcoming. Black Kite 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by GDP[edit]

List of cities by GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on single study (not a source), dubious content.

Not only has this article been created around the theorizing of a single source, I find it to be dubious in nature: based on a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study, it is almost an advertisement for the same company. This company does not cite its sources, nor does it even state where it gets its data or how it comes up with its numbers. As for the reason several seem to question this source's validity, as do I, I can speak for France as an example: In France, the only economical data available is from its administrative areas - communes, départements and régions - and the numbers PWC cites do not at all correspond to this. In reading their study we see that they've based their data on city urban areas, but in France the only thing the urban area (unité urbain) statistical area is used for is demographics (and it changes with every census), thus I don't know how PWC could come up with their numbers - it can only be an estimation. I have doubts about both the veracity and importance of this article - an article written around one source is a no-no here, and when the statistics it "creates" are both unreferenced and dubious, even more. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you can't vote here since the proposal itself already counts as a delete vote. --Belchman (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A list of estimates copied from the source that made them is not article content. You can, on the other hand, create a "PWC estimates on World City GDP" article. In all honesty, I don't see how PWC's estimates can by cited as fact by any article - unless the phrase citing PWC mentions explicitly "according to PWC estimates". THEPROMENADER 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The report wasn't directly copied, it was just the numbers. It's also referenced and given credit so it's not like we're stealing information. We're not passing it off as our own nor are we using their information for profit. Their data isn't even being used for profit. Furthermore, if the actual report was copied with all their explanations and stuff, the article would be much longer than it is now. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "It was just the numbers." - hm. The numbers are indeed copied, none can deny that. The problem is, the numbers are the company's own work - did they publish it under a GPL licence or something of the sort? Citing an article is one thing, copying it by rote is another. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes many articles are copied by rote. Especially practically every article listed at Lists of countries and every other list I've seen. I don't see anyone nominating those articles for deletion or complaining that they are merely copies of some other person's work. Many, actually almost all and every other list I can think off are lists articles I've come to experience are based on another company's or organizations work and the "numbers" are copied directly. So would you be willing to nominate for deletion more than a 1000 articles if not more for nomination then? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's a rather weak argument - none can contest the fact that countries exist, so it is only normal that they be listed by many publications. The numbers in this list, however, are the product of one company using its own (largely undisclosed) method, and copying their work is plagarism, nothing else. The content of the PWC website is copyrighted, by the way, if you care to look at their cover page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not plagiarism though. Plagiarism is copying somebody's own work and passing it off as your own or not giving credit to the author where you got the information from. The lead sentence says it's from PWC. The numbers are cited to PWC. So we're not passing it off as our own work. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROMENADER, based on your logic, we should also delete the [list by GDP] as well as the UN HDI, because the sources come from "dubious" places as well such as the CIA, the IMF, and the World Bank, and that we should apply the tag you suggest "list of GDP as compiled by the IMF, World Banks, IMF, as well. Besides, you mentioning that PWC didn't state where they "got their sources" is a bit dishonest considering that they were extremely clear about it on the main page: https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=3421&NewsAreaID=2 as well as on the PDF, as they got it from other sources and methodologies as well. They even give a person to call and email if you have further questions, which is what I suggest you do if you feel that their reasoning and data isn't clear enough for you.

As I and others have mentioned before in regards to this, have the article setup like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) Country GDP list. Have a compare and contrast sorted out by charts with different sources. PWC isn't the only one that does this as the The Economist Intelligence Unit as well as some national governments do that as well. Are those "advertisements" for the World Bank, and UN as well?

Deleting an article that contains actual, factual information based on the fact that you harbor a personal bias against PWC, that you personally disagree with PWC's methods and results, is intellectually dishonest at the least, and a bit childish and silly. If this is the basis for the deletion of this article then I will have the deletion tag removed by a moderator and have this discussion closed. (talk) 24:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding official sources before. The article was just lately renovated and all figures were replaced by new PWC figures. I'm going to readd official sources, but unlike before as additional column, instead of PWC replacement. Elk Salmon (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are also being a bit dishonest when you say "no official sources" when others here have said that there are other sources for data and wanted to, or are going to, add them to the list. When I updated the list last month, there actually were other sources used as reference. In fact, I was easily able to find the GDP for German and British cities from their respective websites. And, as I mentioned before, the Economist Intelligence Unit does this kind of list as well.

This list is no different than the Most expensive cities in the world or the most livable cities list, both of which, like this article were done by a singular source, a private NGO, in those cases Mercer, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, and none are official stats from national governments, but for some reason you are quiet in regards to those. But you are all jumping up and down for this one in particular, which denotes a private agenda and a personal bias, particularly either against PwC, or that you are upset that your favorite City didn't make the cut. As others have said, if you have a problem with it PwC, take it up with them personal, but you shouldn't deny interesting and valuable information on wikipedia just because you have a problem with it. (Eman007 (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment - Calling an argument farcicical and faulty doesn't make it so, so adopt a more polite tone, please. Comparing this article to others isn't an argument either - especially when the articles you cite do have multiple sources, and just because there exist other articles that copy from a single source doesn't make the practice right. This article is a cut-and-copy of PWC's work, and their methods are doubtful because there are no official sources for the type of numbers they create - end of story - and PWC is not an official source itself. A look at this basic fact and the article's talk page is proof enough of this. THEPROMENADER 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Promenader, you say that "Comparing this article to others isn't an argument either" but then just earlier you used other single sourced articles for deletion as an argument which isn't much of an argument either. Especially since there are hundreds of articles on wikipedia that are single sourced without any issue. Secondly, many of the users on this talk page have also compared this to the other lists as well. Comparing this list to the other lists is a very valid argument, because its a similar type of data with similar sources and use of such data. You also seem to constantly ignore the Keep arguments in that 1. This is NOT a copy and pasted article and no different than others. 2. And that PwC DOES have official sources that others posting on this page have read and acknowledge, but you continue to deny, ignore, and constantly weave change your argument. You first say that there are "no official sources" without any proof of that, then when people post here that they DO have official sources to add to the list, you now change it around to the single source issue and the problem you have with PwC. Again, that is not an logical argument. That sounds more like bias.
    You can continue to deny this, play games as far as circular ignoring outright PwC sources and criteria, as well as what others have said from the "Keep" arguments, but it looks like on this talk page alone, the Keeps outnumber the Deletes. One or two more keeps, and we can consider this issue dropped and closed and put up a "Disputed Sources" Tag on the page instead. Again as I others here on this talk page have said, take up your personal issues with PwC with PwC and leave them off of Wikipedia. Other users here on this talk page have said there are sources and will volunteer to add them to the page.Eman007 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course, adding other sources would make this article valid, but the problem is that, when you do, the list will always be contested because, as there is no unique international method for determining city spread/pdg, those involved in the very immature "my city is bigger than yours" battle (IMHO the very purpose of this article) will favour "sources" that favour their "own" city. Again, this article in its present state is plagarism because it is a direct copy of a single company's work - and since making an article from multiple sources would be impossible if it were to have any coherency, it is a project condemned from the get-go. What has to change is the context - to become an actual article and not a copied list, this article has to present itself as a method and not solid fact - perhaps dividing it into "City PDG according to..." sections would work to this end. And yes, of course, instead of listening to reason, one could wait for the support of the authors of the article itself to win out, as what usually happens here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment*I think you're getting confused with what plagiarism is. True that when you plagiarize something, you copy someone else's work. But you also pass it off as your own or don't give credit to the author. This is already false because it is already stated in the article who the author is and where it's from. Furthermore, any list can be treated as my whatever is better than your whatever, so I don't see the basis on your thinking here. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentMy sentiments exactly Elockid. I don't think Promenader is confused at all, but is deliberately obfusticating the issue just to drive his point down that he has a personal issue and disagreement with this list and with PwC. Possibly like the other "deletes", acting out of National Pride and wants the list removed wholesale and condemns PwC.
    Promenader, the authors and editors of this article, myself one of them, and which you are not if I were to look at the history of edits, is overwhelmingly in favor at this point for keeping this article, but adding other sources which the others say are available and actually are. You can obfusticate and delude yourself all you want, but Wikipedia is a Democracy, and Democracy it looks like has spoken in favor of keeping the article. One or two more keeps and we can consider this discussion closed as we can place a "disputed sources" tag on the page, as we can get to work adding other sources onto the page and thus creating the balance that information of this sort needs. Eman007 (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you can make a coherent and factual list with different sources, of course I would agree to this article's existence. I don't, on the other hand, cater to the "democracy" that is more gang tactics than anything - authours of delusion of course will be the first to defend it. You are not in direct argument with me, but with fact. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Promenader, in addition to you not understanding what plagiarism is, it doesn't seem that you know how Democracy works as well as how Wikipedia works, because one group of votes outnumbering and overruling another is certainly not "gang tactics". To apparently simplify for you, you set this page up to conduct a consensus to delete this page. Right now the consensus and argument is in heavily favor of keeping the page but by adding different sources. See wikipedia policy for this [Consensus].
    As far as you saying"If you can make a coherent and factual list with different sources," we've been saying this the entire time, for the last few days, but you keep constantly arguing against that for some illogical reason. Eman007 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - I'm not at all arguing against it, I'm saying that making a coherent and uncontested list will be well-neigh impossible for the simple reason that data like this does not exist from official government or census sources, nor does there exist a single system of determining the spread of a city, so the best thing anyone can do is make estimates - and even the estimates here are contested. A list from different sources that use different methods will make an even bigger mess - but go ahead and try if you like, at least the result won't be stealing a single source's work. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - If data such as this does now exist from government sources as you claim, then where did the city of Frankfurt and the German Government get this information from: [1]. Or Paris: [2] and New York [3]? Or the Economist Intelligence Unit [4]?
    Secondly, this list nor is PwC's aim is to determine "the spread of a city", but determining the Economic output of some of the world's largest metropolitan areas. No different than doing so for a country. By your faulty logic, we shouldn't take the same data for countries as well.
    Further compounding your illogical argument, the United Nations is not a national government, same for the World Bank, or the IMF, but you don't dispute their information.
    The more you keep dragging this on, the more inconsistent and illogical you are making yourself. Not to mention silly because you constantly refer to this article being plagiarism and stealing, when this article clearly states where this information is coming from and is properly referenced and cited according to both Wikipedia and Academic standards. None of the other wikipedia users on this page feel the same way about this page either except you. Please read what Plagiarism is before you start accusing and assuming the concept. But then it isn't plagarism any more according to you, the problem then becomes its "single sourced". Eman007 (talk
  • Comment - My logic is anything but faulty; you're descending to personal attack rather than listen to it, so change your tone to a more civil one, please. Also, make an effort to format your statements in a more displayable way.
    Let's not get into deconstruction and your selective examples (even if the French one you cite is determined by adminstrative regions or economical activity, not demographics): rather stick to the irrefutable fact that there is no single international method of determining city spread. Also keep in mind the irrefutable fact that few countries collect their economic data in the same way, and most all of these collect them along administrative boundries, not demographic ones. Put the two together, and what do you have? Varied data balanced against a lack of data; it is only normal that the result of such a method of estimation differs so greatly across sources.
    Yet rather than make an article on "estimations of City PDG" that would have to include several lists ('ranking according to...'), the authors of this article took the easy route of copying a single source and presenting it as if it an article based on sources and fact; you can't cite a source in an article where the article is about the source itself.
    The only way to give this article any objectivity and raison d'être is to either a) include the source and subject of the article in the title, or b) make it an article about why different companies are trying to make such a list, and why. THEPROMENADER 10:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not making personal attacks anymore than the others have on this page, so you can stop with your trivial accusations to further obfusticate your argument.
    Secondly, you are getting more illogical and inconsistent. You say not to get into "deconstruction and your selective examples", but then you just wrote an entire paragraph devoted to deconstruction and selective examples. This after you claimed that there are no official governmental sources, but then I just proved you wrong that there actually are.
    Again, you are seemingly confused to the POINT OF THIS LIST! The point of this list is not determining "determining city spread", but the economic output or GDP of the world's largest metropolitan areas. What you ask: "make it an article about why different companies are trying to make such a list" makes no sense in that regard, because so far, its been only one company that has such data, which is getting its sources from not only governmental sources, but from the UN and OECD. Something PwC makes very clear in the PDF and the webpage where this is from, but you wont read and apparently did not do so in the first convinietly enough.
    Again and again, as I and others on this page have said to you continuously, it does not matter who it is from, public or private organization, as long as their data is legitimate, and its properly sourced as it has been on this article. Most of your criticism is purely personal because none of it seems to directly correspond to anything that PwC said on the original PDF or the webpage.
    Again, the standard that will be followed on this page will be similar to the GDP and the Standard of Living articles which are exactly types of information. And like those pages, different charts can and will be setup to show the different types of pages. You logic of a "messy page" is farcical, because it does not look messy on those pages at all, but shows the varied means of criteria that different organizations use to come to conclusions when determining GDP.
    Again, you are dragging this out as long as possible in order to prove yourself correct, when as mentioned before, you make yourself more and more illogical, incorrect, apparently unknowledgeable as to how to properly use Wikipdia as well as make a proper academic citation. This article is not about "article is about the source itself" but a list of information that was gathered by an corporation for public use. Once again, and please before you post again, get aquainted and clear on what Plagiarism is. You do not have an argument and never had. You are deliberately obfusticating the issue as long you think its possible in your mind in order to hide the fact that you just don't like PwC, this list, or that you are acting out of National Pride.
    The user Colonel Warden is 100% correct. You are trying to achieve a standard of perfection that actually goes against Wikipedia rules and conduct. Please read that section to be clear on that concept: WP:IMPERFECT. It is Wikipedia policy to preserve and/or improve articles. Again, please clarify yourself with such policy here WP:PRESERVE, and not wholesale delete articles based on a personal bias, or what limited perception and inaccuracies on what your think plagiarism is. --Eman007 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you can accuse and deconstruct all you like (with whatever irrelevant "rules" and adjectives you like), but if still you can't answer to the three illogical fallacies (or sum of two) about this article that I outlined above, you have no argument. Rather than post further selective 'fitting to my opinion' "examples", why not just let protectionism gang tactics win out (as the norm seems to be here)? Btw, Weakopedia's comment below summed things up nicely. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment P.S. - If I can sum things up as well, this article is the work of a single entity that has no clear source to cite but itself. The numbers published here can only be attributed to and found in themselves and their (undisclosed) methods, so go figure. THEPROMENADER 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How about we structure the article in a way like List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population where we have multiple columns for different sources. We have one column for PWC, another column for an "official estimates" or "other estimate" column as some have stated to be found and another if another list is found for that source. This way we have multiple sources instead of one source as this seems to be a key issue and editors/readers can have a better idea of what are the current estimates out there. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:35, 7 December 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.
More