Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area (edit | 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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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

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

• 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)
• 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)