- 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 17:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
List of localities in England by population
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of localities in England by population ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is just a list of sub divisions of urban areas. It has no sources outside the primary one. I dont believe it is notable information. I think the use of the word localities to refer to them is also wrong. Eopsid ( talk) 21:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. A pointless list, except to make a WP:POINT. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The use of "localities" in the title is problematic and the list is kind of pointless. Plus, it's unreferenced anyway. There are some lists/sources out there about "population of cities in United Kingdom", but they aren't in any way similar to this from what I can tell. Not that Wikipedia articles should just be a recreation of other lists anyway though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 01:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with the points raised above, especially Adamant1's point about about localities being problematic (and indeed I would say unencyclopedic). Dunarc ( talk) 23:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom and Adamant1 // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, Per above, don't know what the use of this list is. Alex-h ( talk) 09:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep localities are important and verifiable and the population of settlements is discussed by many sources. If necessary maybe it could be merged with List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Unlike the urban areas article this appears to be referring to individual BUASDs which can provide a more realistic population data for joined settlements [1]. The ONS is an independent source for these places even if it has "created" the actual terms but in any case we haven't use such terms in the title of this article anyway. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that most of these aren't localities. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reading that pdf you linked it says this about BUASDs on the 2nd to last page: names in the 2011 dataset were generated using an automated process. [...] The automated process has, however, led to some changes in the way the sub-divisions are named, especially in the large conurbations and cities. Sometimes different names to those used in 2001 have been assigned, in other cases the same name has been used but for a slightly different area than in 2001. Therefore, caution is needed when comparing statistics for built-up areas sub-divisions over time.
- This contradicts with you saying they provide a more realistic population for joined settlements. They are auto generated and inconsistent compared to the previous census. There is no "proper" definition for settlements in the UK. And if there was BUASDs definitely arent it. Eopsid ( talk) 19:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It does appear urban sub-divisions (as a synonym for locality) were indeed in use as an English census device through to 2001, and BUASDs created in 2011. Therefore, this list is correct - it captures the last year of a specific definition for a sub-built-up area, which was changed. There's a good argument this should be merged somewhere, since it's now historical, but it's in line with the population tables we have on the site - there's also a good argument it should be renamed to urban sub-divisions (2001), or possibly add other historical years from prior censuses as well to the table. It probably also needs to be clarified a bit given the confusion with some of the delete !voters so far along with the few minutes spent researching it on my end. SportingFlyer T· C 01:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- We arent debating whether the list is correct or not but whether its notable. What population tables that we have on the site?
Eopsid (
talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Populations of settlements are likely to be notable, while its true that many such lists are defined by administrative boundaries rather than settlement boundaries, a list of large settlements is still IOM suitable even if the definition changes occasionally (which the list can then be updated or kept as historical as is is) instead of deleting it. Yes the criteria may not be perfect but it still seems like its suitable enough for a list.
Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- But they aren't settlements! Thats the problem. They are simply subdivisions of urban areas they aren't settlements. The source doesnt even say they are. Eopsid ( talk) 22:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure what you're arguing here - the criteria for inclusion are clearly defined here as urban sub-divisions. The fact we're using different terms for populated places just adds to the confusion.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 23:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well there are London boroughs which aren't settlements, maybe they should be removed or put in italic text? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Populations of settlements are likely to be notable, while its true that many such lists are defined by administrative boundaries rather than settlement boundaries, a list of large settlements is still IOM suitable even if the definition changes occasionally (which the list can then be updated or kept as historical as is is) instead of deleting it. Yes the criteria may not be perfect but it still seems like its suitable enough for a list.
Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- We arent debating whether the list is correct or not but whether its notable. What population tables that we have on the site?
Eopsid (
talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This previous discussion might be useful: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population Eopsid ( talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not really - that list appears to have been a WP:OR mishmash of statistics, while this is based on data. They are two different lists. SportingFlyer T· C 23:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm with the deletes above. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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.