Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area

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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannock Built-up Area

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

Articles on small urban/Built-up areas such as this are in my view not notable otherwise there would be many articles about a couple of villages which form an urban area or articles on village's built-up area but excluding a couple of farms. The article itself spends most of its word count talking about subdivisions of this area. These subdivisions although well sourced lack any clear definition unlike the overall concept of an urban area. I previously tried to merge this article with the Cannock article but after some discussion there it was decided it would be better to delete this article. Eopsid (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Talk:Cannock#Cannock Built-up area merger this is the discussion regarding the merger undertaken after I merged the two after leaving up a merger notice for about a fortnight and then it was reverted after I'd done the merger. Eopsid (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is an area of urban sprawl due to a series of industrial villages having virually joined up. However the area is split between two districts. I thus cannot see how it can be regarded as a cherent whole. If the article is kept at all, I would suggest that it should become litlte more than a list, pointing to the articles on individual places. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Each subdivision may be regarded as a coherent whole, and the whole area meets the ONS's definition of a Built-up Area. For an incoherent BUA, see West Yorkshire Urban Area! "The article itself spends most of its word count talking about subdivisions of this area." - There are only two subdivisions and now only one sentence mentions them. "Subdivisions lack any clear definition." - The ONS says they are "to provide greater detail in the data, especially in the larger conurbations." Kinewma (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The West Yorkshire Urban Area is one of the larger conurbations that subdivisions were made for. Eopsid (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Many a BUA does not have a wiki article when it shares most of its population with a single town. But an article seems to me entirely justifiable when a BUA is covered by two or more towns in addition to other settlements, as in the case of the Cannock BUA. Cannock, Hednesford and Heath Hayes cover a built-up area that forms the core part of the BUA. But neither town (Cannock or Hednesford) has even 34% of the BUA's population, so the Cannock BUA article is by far the best place to describe it. Even the basic information about the BUA and its two subdivisions (population, area, map links, settlements) is too much for a short paragraph in either town's article. And a whole section would be inappropriate in an article about an area with under 34% of the BUA's population. The Cannock BUA is a conurbation with two towns (and other settlements), three railway stations, and a population of 86,121. It's a notable area bigger than 90% of BUAs and worthy of its own article. Kinewma (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still is the smallest English BUA with an article. The lack of a real centre is probably the best argument for keeping this article. Unfortunately I can't find any sources which talks about the Cannock BUA other than the ONS one. If I could find another source then this article would be in a much better position to be kept because articles for other small British conurbations like Levenmouth and Deeside have other sources. However there is some debate in those cases especially the latter as to whether the BUA = Deeside or whether it doesn't because the BUA isn't called Deeside and includes areas not usually considered part of Deeside. Eopsid (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Cannock Chase Council refers to local urban areas in numerous reports it doesn't refer to precisely the area(s) defined by the ONS so doesn't use their terminology. The ONS-defined areas are those for which the ONS provides population statistics. Kinewma (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You basically just said ONS defined areas are those defined by the ONS. My point was that other small Urban Areas/BUAs/Conurbations with articles do so partly because they have other sources talking about them not just the ONS one. Eopsid (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems as reasonable an article as one about any similar geographical subdivision. That is might be somewhat arbitrary is no reason to exclude it. We have to take the world as we find it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (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.