Rio de Janeiro–São Paulo megalopolis : lizthegrey ( talk ) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Brazil .  lizthegrey ( talk ) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It seems weird to call it this a megalopolis when the image shows clearly how distinct Rio and Sao Paulo are with a big dark gap between them.  The two urban areas are about 180 miles apart, similar to New York to Washington DC, but the Northeast megalopolis has Baltimore and Philadelphia in between too!  This would need much better sourcing to even call it a megalopolis in the first place and then to establish notability.  Reywas92 Talk 04:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep .  While the article needs some improvement and expansion, the subject appears to meet WP:GNG .  GNG is primarily established by the many pages of SIGCOV by Godfrey, Brian J. "Revisiting Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo".  Geographical Review .  [13] .  One short keystone quote for the topic of this article: Even as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo have sprawled to form the two main nuclei of an integrated megalopolis with a current population of between 30 and 60 million in southeastern Brazil, the two cities retain distinguishing characteristics.  The above paper references and critiques an earlier 1933 paper by Preston E. James from 1933 that seems to have discussed the idea briefly, note however that was prior to the modern definition of "megalopolis", so we rely on the above paper to provide necessary context.  A solid chunk of coverage in Cities of the World: Regional Patterns and Urban Environments [14] , which uses "megalopolis", "expanded metropolitan complex" and "conurbation" to describe the subject.  Pages 24–28 of Mega-city Growth and the Future [15] covers this subject along with several other related ones.  There's also mentions by Jean Gottmann (who literally wrote the book on Megolopolis [16] ) in "Megalopolitan systems around the world" [17] and "An interview with Jean Gottmann on urban geography" [18] .  While these mentions are shorter, the individual doing the mentioning gives weight.  Further mentions in [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] help establish the accepted subject in name, as well.  — siro χ o 09:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be happy to reverse my nomination if those sources were added to the article rather than it being a bare almost-unsourced stub.  lizthegrey ( talk ) 18:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your reply.  While I often do try to improve articles by adding sources and improving verifiability, for deletion discussions that hinge on notability, which is most of them, the general consensus is to abide by WP:NEXIST .  I will try to get to this one at some point but I am not sure when that will be.  If you're not able to add the sources either, anyone else can, or is also free to copy any of this into a {{ Refideas }} template on the talk page.  — siro χ o 01:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as WP:NEXIST per siroxo.  S5A-0043 Talk 05:38, 2 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep