Deletion of List of Chinese administrative divisions by population

Comment: It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai. Sorry, the numbers for Chongqing and Beijing are different than what was in the list, but now they are properly referenced. The other numbers should be properly referenced likewise. I happen to follow Chongqing, Beijing and Shanghai, so I have those numbers. As two out of three numbers were wrong, I expect further changes as this list is properly referenced. If it's not, all unreferenced data can be deleted. It is now unlikely that the whole page will be deleted. However, all unreferenced data can be deleted at any time. (Caution: Even after everything is properly referenced, giving a ranking could attract accusations of  on the grounds of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I don't like it, but them's the rules
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: If an article has  issues, that's what template tags are for. An AfD is out of the question, especially since you have only added the disputed, unreferenced and OR tags 7 minutes before nominating the AfD. This is not what an AfD is for. I would also like to mention  - certainly if you are concerned about the welfare of an article, you'd be '''bold''' enough to fix it yourself? The same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SOFIXIT)