Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-income places in the United States

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator Apparently the OR aspect doesn't bother anyone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-income places in the United States

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

From all appearances, the list is all WP:OR. The only source listed is a entry page to the 2000 US Census. No reliable third party has compiled this list. The topic itself could merit a list, but if we remove the OR, there's nothing left here. This is probably case of it being better to just delete and start over, especially since the source material used is all 15 years old and has been superseded. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update, all census data is available for each decade online, even if the current link is broken. The sister article on the poorest places has been updated with data from the 2010 census. The census is every 10 years so by time it is published it is already out-of-date. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it's OR. Who says these are the 100 richest? Someone who sorted through them? Are they reliable or did they do haphazard work? Using a reliable source to create your own conclusion is WP:SYNTH. If the census produced this table, it would be acceptable. Or a reliable third party. This is not from anyone but an editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak "keep and update: but okay with "delete and immediately rewrite with current data" - WP:OR arguments probably don't apply. I didn't read the raw census data but 1) it's probably obvious from the raw data that the information was true as of the 2000 census, and 2) the very nature of census data lends itself to this kind of data-extraction. WP:OR says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. [emphasis added]" Although I did not actually read the census data, if it is like most census data then the part of WP:OR that I put in bold does NOT apply in this case and if the article is to be deleted, it needs to be deleted on other grounds, such as "hopelessly stale, time to light the fuse on the WP:TNT and re-write it with 2010 census data." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm familiar with what OR says. I disagree with your assessment. There is nothing in the census website that clearly reaches this conclusion. Instead, we're to believe that someone went through all of the locations, determined the top 100, then put them all in order. Sure it can be done, but when it's a Wikipedia editor doing it, there is an element of OR involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs improved referencing and formatting. The references are too vague to know whether US census data has been faithfully reproduced or not, or whether there has been original research or synthesis. However, it is part of a series of article and there is no reason to assume bad faith. Overall keep, in this case the poor quality of article is not enough for me to recommend it be deleted.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really bad faith to question whether someone actually researched and accurately tabulated 6 separate lists of 100 places (and a 7th shorter list), using different criteria for each list? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which of you !voting keep is going to be willing to do all the re-writing you think it needs? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do not discard articles if the only problem is that they need improvement DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we do discard articles that are based on OR. I've yet to see anyone show a third party make these conclusions. These lists are based solely on an editor taking several hundred pieces of information, putting them into lists and we're just accepting the validity. The fact that nobody even questions that is interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Getting off-topic here, bear with me) Actually, DGG, WP:Blow it up and start over is a good reason to delete an article. I am NOT saying that reason applies here, only that there are some articles where a "mercy killing" and starting over is appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I conceded from the start that the topic is probably notable but that this was probably a case of delete and start over, preferably with a reliable source constructing the lists. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I accept WP:TNT. I usually use it for a somewhat different situation, and In a somewhat milder wording: Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. I've not yet used it for OR, though, because if there are sources, they can always be added. I would apply it when the OR is perverse or fringy, not just merely saying on one's one authority what one could have equally well said it with sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 August 2015 (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.