Deletion of List of largest cities by area (4th nomination)

Comment: this article/list is silly, how is the "cutoff" decided? 10,000sqkm? 1,000sqkm? 100sqkm? ie. if i add Boston that has an area of 232.14sqkm, if/when it is removed what legitimate argument to remove it ie. backed up by |sources, can be made
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Merge''', or '''Redirect''' to List of largest cities: Delete is the first choice as there is otability|'''No notability''' for a standalone article. This AFD needs an admin closure for sure. The Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Common outcomes|outcome depends on close attention to policies and guidelines as well as other criterion, and not just a Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|head count. Any !vote except "keep" actually means editors deem a stand-alone article not appropriate. "Merge" and redirects" sometimes causes confusion and they should not. This is the 4th nomination with one deletion and an "article champion" has not emerged. The possibility of Wikipedia:POTENTIAL is negated by the lack of notability. In this case, the target article for both merge and redirect is either List of largest cities or List of cities proper by population. There are three !votes for a redirect to ''List of largest cities'' and one for ''List of cities proper by population''. There is one merge !vote for ''List of largest cities''. There are four !votes for delete (including my first choice). A summary would be of fourteen !votes nine consider the article not worthy of stand-alone status and five think it deserves to remain. I have serious concerns with the comments ''"...summary article of three lists..."'', so it is appropriate to have a fourth '''summary list'''? Now we need a new "Category"? What about ''"Also, it isn't that hard to contribute to because you can just copy the area from a city's Wikipedia article (an act of pure laziness)."''. If we have to "copy" Wikipedia content to another article that should be a red flag of |original research, that has continuously been mentioned. There are four references and a general source and all can support content but ''none of the five sources advance notability'' and that is a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR)