Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Cannock. Missvain (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannock 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)

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. The name and the statistical area were auto-generated, the only source is a primary one. There is no coverage in other sources. All the information in the article is pretty much already repeated in the main Cannock article. Two similar articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area have been deleted recently. Eopsid (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cannock similar to Royal Leamington Spa except that this one isn't multi-centered. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area in that this is another machine-generated area that no human created. In this case, the machine appears to have done what a flood fill does in a paint program when one hasn't quite drawn completely around an area. It has flooded across a major national limited-access highway, that effectively physically separates the two places from each other. And it hasn't done what humans actually do. Human-generated areas, in contrast to this machine-generated one, are well documented and widely used. This is documented and used only by the statisticians who use the computer programs that invented it.

  One such human-generated area was https://blackcountryplan.dudley.gov.uk/media/13882/bcgb-0919-black-country-gb-stage-1-and-2-plus-app1-final-reduced_redacted.pdf#page=30 , which does not use this grouping, but a different one incorporating four towns (Cannock, Hednesford, Cheslyn Hay, and Great Wyrley) not two. Indeed, the article itself points out that the areas that are actually recognized and used are not what the machine has generated. There are similarly lots of books and articles that are in fact about Cannock Chase District/Cannock Chase//Cannock Chase Coalfield. But that is not this machine-generated grouping either.

  The Victoria History of Stafford groups Cannock with Hednesford as a built-up area. That's not this, again.

  I thought that this might be different, but it isn't. As with the two other "built-up areas" thus far, in the 8 years of its existence this concept has failed to gain any traction outwith its creators that I can find anywhere. This is original research.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the map of the Built-up area it does include all four (Cannock, Hednesford, Cheslyn Hay, and Great Wyrley) but the ONS only decided to label two as subdivisions. Eopsid (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article outright tells us that this doesn't include the whole of Cannock, as the others do. Indeed, even looking at the map shows an entire built-up housing estate right in the middle that is magically excluded by the machine-generated flood fill, that can reach across a national highway but not through a nature park and some industrial estates. No-one has, let alone uses, this wacky except-one-housing-estate definition of Heath Hayes. Nor indeed does anyone have the evern more nutty except-two-housing-estates-and-the-skatepark-and-tennis-courts definition of Hednesford, which has two housing estates excluded to its west and all of the buildings in Hednesford Park excluded because this isn't in fact a built-up area that a human would determine from buildings. As I said in another AFD discussion the "Hey look! The computer almost got it right." self-congratulatory note in the doco is telling. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the problem with the map is that its two different date maps stitched together. The open street map part is relatively recent whilst the Cannock built-up area overlay is using 2011 data. So any new housing estates will be outside the built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I think its worth pointing out the article is more than 8 years old. Originally it used 2001 census data now its on 2011. That probably gives further weight to your argument that "this concept has failed to gain any traction outwith its creators that I can find anywhere." Eopsid (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cannock. ——Serial 12:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Statistical area that doesn't its own article. Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 25 May 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.