Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second city

:{{la|Second city}} ([{{fullurl:Second city|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second city}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

An unreferenced, unmaintainable, incomplete and subjective list of cities Untick (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - A referenced, maintained, near-complete and near-NPOV list of cities. It has a few problems and needs some more sources but most of the articles on wiki do too. A delete would be plain stupid when it is a fairly decent article with sources. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - per Joshii, no reason to delete as far as I can see. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Has issues, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not completely unreferenced and being unreferenced is not in itself a reason for deletion. I don't see why it would be unmaintainable. Incomplete is also not a reason for deleting wikipedia lists or they would never get started. Subjectivity can be addressed by the use of reliable sources. There might be a notability issue in that question of the second city of some countries is a big deal, but that's not necessarily the case in every country. However reliable sources discussing the topic rather than merely mentioning it could be required if you wanted to be ultra-strict. Nerfari (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs some work but nothing bad enough to require deletion. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced, informative, not indiscriminte. I42 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Rename as List of second cities? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.