Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Milton Keynes

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 no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Milton Keynes[edit]

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

No other urban sub-area has an article. The area's boundaries are unclear. It has one reference which seems to just be a map of the northern part of Milton Keynes Eopsid (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Since the extent of the area is unlclear, we really cannot have an article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most urban sub-areas have articles, but almost all relate to an existing settlement. This one is unusual as being an artefact of the Office of National Statistics. The area's boundaries are given in detail in the external link and stated as: 'The Central Milton Keynes urban sub-area and the North Milton Keynes urban sub-area together approximate to that part of the former Newport Pagnell Rural District that is west of the River Ouzel.' But note for example that the CMK Urban subarea link is to [[Central Milton Keynes#ONS Urban sub-area|Central Milton Keynes urban sub-area]], which is the typical way of showing Urban Sub-areas. Wikipedia should be inclusive and deletions should be highly exceptional. Ephemera like the umpteen episode of Friends are far more appropriate for deletion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

It may be that the ONS plans to cease use of recognisable names for urban sub-areas in the 2011 census, using 'Low level output areas' instead. Also, looking at the map at http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/NeighbourhoodSummary.do?a=7&b=276853&c=MK13+9EA&g=409617&i=1001x1012&j=301090&m=1&p=1&q=1&r=0&s=1350390729399&enc=1&bigMap=true&inWales=false&textLanguage=1 it may be that the ONS have plans to divide and rename this US-a, since the map shows it divided into different LLOAs, 011 and 013. So this discussion should be suspended until we see Census 2011. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One person has sought its deletion and his/her basis for doing so has been questioned and the challenge left unanswered. The default status for articles is that they should be kept when they are founded on a reliable source. The citation for this one is the Office for National Statistics, which is as impeccable as they get. Leave it alone. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What question has been left unanswered? You pointing out that other urban sub-areas have articles but this is the only one which doesnt relate to an existing settlements is true, but thats really what I meant by No other urban sub-area has an article.. To clarify I meant other urban subareas which have articles relate to existing settlements this is the only one that does not that has an article. Eopsid (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an argument based on the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. Nearly all of these ONS-defined urban sub-areas are coterminous with areas defined for other purposes, so they don't need separate articles. North Milton Keynes is an exception, so a separate article is needed. If there are other such exceptions then they should also have articles: one of them has to be the first. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying that North Milton Keynes is not notable enough to have an article mainly because it doesnt exist outside the ONS data on urban areas and other uses of the term North Milton Keynes may not be coterminous with that area. Eopsid (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of similiar cases according to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom there is also a Normanton South (not to be confused with South Normanton) urban sub area, according to the article's source there is also a Normanton North (which is a seperate urban area). This is a bit of a different case to the Milton Keynes one though seeing as these areas are physically seperate not one urban area however one may refer to a number of villages and looking on bing's ordnance survey maps I think it refers to Altofts. Eopsid (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (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.