Deletion of Historical urban community sizes

Comment: I held off commenting on this in the hope that a better justification for deletion would emerge, but here goes. 1. It is agreed that the topic is notable. 2. The sources are not all from Chandler. 3. Most articles are, and ideally should be, drawn from different sources, and  does not prohibit that in any way. 4. Books have been written about what constituted a city at different periods, and the title seems a reasonable attempt at arriving at a description appropriate across time and  place. As a notable topic in its own right  cannot apply. 5. We cannot delete an article, with great respect to the nominator, on the unsupported grounds that the source of some of the information was a crank or dishonest when he is described elsewhere as a reliable source. This would open WP up to all sorts of academic tit for tat behaviour. If there are reliable sources offering different figures in particular cases, or questioning whether a place was indeed urbanised at the relevant period, they can be incorporated in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Topic is notable, but article needs some discussion of the sources and possible unreliability of the estimates. Chandler is a notable source even if a crank on some other issues. Not  as it is just a list of numbers and doesn't advance any position. Possible original research as sources may be unreliable; adding more sources might alleviate this problem. Taliban fatality reports was deleted mainly because it was news, so is not relevant to this discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)