The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find sources, appears to be original research. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• There's sources in the article. You seem to have just nominated it because of my edit to South normanton. It is able to be kept maybe read the Built up articles discussion on WikiGeography? Nomis site is reliable in it is an official stats site and this can be kept as it was in a discussion on the page. Maybe head there before AfD nomination and claiming original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG ( talk • contribs) 2021-04-17T20:26:09 (UTC)
• Delete This fails WP:GEOLAND as a non-notable census tract. These “Built-Up Areas” were auto-generated and auto-named by the ONS for the purpose of analysing census data ( [1]). There has been no wider uptake of this term, nor any in-depth discussion in reliable sources, so it also fails WP:GNG.—-- Pontificalibus 20:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• I just found toe articles here from Derbyshire site https://observatory.derbyshire.gov.uk/a01-alfreton-and-somercotes/. And https://observatory.derbyshire.gov.uk/b05-south-normanton-and-pinxton/ And the nomis is accepted as reliable for stats and built up areas.

  Also try here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#New_articles_on_built-up_areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG ( talk • contribs) 2021-04-17T20:46:58 (UTC)

• Keep its not a census tract, census tracts are arbitrary parts of districts that have a number and letter attached to them ( example) but this is a named geographical census area and unlike many such as Grimsby built-up area that can be merged into their single location this is a BUA named after multiple so probably shouldn't be merged. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose I meant census area rather than tract in its narrow sense. The point is this is some auto-generated thing that has zero notability and fails all our notability guidelines. Can you give any sources that demonstrate a human rather than a bot regards this as a built-up area, let alone any sources featuring actual discussion of said area rather than simple statistics? Just because there isn’t a merge target doesn’t mean there is any valid rationale for keeping it. -- Pontificalibus 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The names are also auto-generated so I dont think we can really use the name as a justification not to delete. Eopsid ( talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • As NOMIS notes in the guide the locations are checked and some are removed such as industrial areas. In this case its auto generated which is surely more reliable! especially since modifications are made to improve the accuracy etc. The question is if an ONS BUA qualifies as being "legally recognized" for the purpose of GEOLAND? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I think the content belongs in the articles about the places in the area, but the American and Chinese equivalents were kept based on similar sources. Peter James ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
        • This area is considerably smaller than all those American and Chinese ones though, at least the ones linked below. Also I'd like to point out I'm not a strong supporter of deletion, and think we should have articles on larger UK Built-up areas. Eopsid ( talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Everything in List of micropolitan statistical areas links to an article or redirect - the areas are a similar size to this. Many of them redirect to the county, but there are articles for those that cover more than one county. Peter James ( talk) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
            • I don't particularly like those articles because they only have one source and dont have much information in. But you are winning me round to the idea of keeping this article. Eopsid ( talk) 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• weak delete - I would support a merge, but theres like three obvious merge targets. I think we should delete but make mention of this built-up area in all the towns inside it: South Normanton, Alfreton amongst others. Its quite a loose conurbation of industrial villages connected by a large industrial estate, I think we'd struggle to find a source except the ONS one. I'm not familiar with the area though, maybe it has a different local name which does have more sources. Eopsid ( talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It could be merged to more than one article, or kept as a separate article as Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area and Taoyuan–Zhongli metropolitan area were. Peter James ( talk) 12:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• I have found the Alfreton and South Normanton station, the Alfreton and South Normanton bypass, and even an Mansfield/Alfreton growth zone. No sign of this yet. The station and bypass should redirect somewhere, I think. Uncle G ( talk) 22:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The fact that I couldn't find anything, in conjunction with the research that then I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, leads me to conclude that this too is original research that simply has not escaped its creators in 8 years and been used by geographers, cartographers, and others. Delete. Uncle G ( talk) 23:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Why is it necessary for an editor to create a contrived redirect, 17 April 23:44 UTC to Alfreton and South Normanton station? When there's already a contrived Alfreton and South Normanton railway station? Why S Normanton, when the station is clearly not. What's going on here? How about creating Alfreton and Somer-co-Tees?? The same handful of people manipulating WP to distort history and geography? The tail wagging the dog.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 00:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I can only report the things that I found by the names that I found them. If you think those names contrived, you should take that up with the people who wrote the books. Good luck, as I believe that the author of Bulmer's History, Topography, and Directory of Derbyshire is dead. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I found these https://info.ambervalley.gov.uk/docarc/docviewer.aspx?docguid=a7e04b5fce414980ae790f948e2ee944, https://www.doogal.co.uk/BuiltUpArea.php?area=E34004585, https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/englandua/?cityid=10826 and the ones I listed before RailwayJG ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I created that redirect and I dispute that its a contrived redirect, Alfreton and South Normanton railway station has existed as a redirect since 2008. I just created one without the word railway in. And the Alfreton railway station article clearly states that the station was renamed to Alfreton and South Normanton railway station in 1891. There was no attempt on my part to distort history and geography. Eopsid ( talk) 08:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Eopsid the fact is you would not have created the redirect unless prompted by the redlink created by Uncle G (based on an entry in a pre-1900 gazeteer, I understand) a few minutes beforehand. And of course readers will be queueing to search for 130-year-old terms. I did try to look at the gazeteer but wouldn't load.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 00:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - whilst I agree with deletion. I dispute that this article is Original Research, it is sourced [2]. Although I would consider that a primary source and not enough for WP:SIGCOV Eopsid ( talk) 08:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:GEOLAND, looks like 100% OR. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with deletion and that it fails WP:GEOLAND but can you please explain to me how its 100% OR? Almost everything in the article is sourced from [3], which is from the Office for National Statistics who I would consider a reliable source. Eopsid ( talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Agree I'm not sure where OR came from (unless you're talking about the places it contains) but the source does arguably make it a legally recognized place. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I think the Burton upon Trent and Swadlincote Green Belt and Mansfield Urban Area should all be merged as they don't really have any big defining settlements. And Mansfield and Ashfield are relatively close as an urban area.

• I dont think thats relevant to this discusison, you may want to add merge notices to those pages. There are instructions how to do it here Wikipedia:Merging Eopsid ( talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect to Leamington Spa . No evidence this meets GEOLAND or GNG. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete (Nothing to merge/redirect to): a definition that has never been significantly used by reliable sources. —— Serial 15:56, 30 April 2021 (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.