Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richest cities in the world
It seems odd to me that so many editors are voting to keep this article despite the clear problems that have been noted. This is a '''straight reprint''' of http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html this commissioned study, so copyright issues certainly apply. More importantly , however, the study uses a set of specific metrics to allow for a city-by-city comparison, such as using PPP (as oppose to e.g. trade-weighted terms), defining cities by their "surrounding urban area", etc... That's all fine, but how then can this list expand to reflect '''multiple, independent sources'''? As soon as information is introduced from another source, the comparison becomes worthless: the integrity of a single analytical method is necessary for the information to make sense. Another study could base findings on a separate set of metrics, making a data merge impossible. What we end up with is an article that should be called the PricewaterhouseCoopers Richest cities in the world, like the List_of_most_expensive_cities, which should be called Mercer Human Resource Consulting List_of_most_expensive_cities. Is Wikipedia really supposed to be a repository for single-sourced studies? That last example is informative, btw. The Economist publishes its own version of the most expensive cities in the world. Because it uses a different set of parameters, however, the information it derives cannot be included. Surely this is textbook 
— User:Eusebeus, 07:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)