Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Johannesburg


 * 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. Has since been rewritten as a sort of dab page.  Sandstein  21:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Greater Johannesburg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A statistical concept without official definition or statistics (the only stats coming from now defunct looking4.co.za) Batternut (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment - the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council" of the late 1990s referred to an area that is now slightly smaller (ie not covering Midrand) than the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, somewhat contrary to the aims of this article. Batternut (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, hope you're doing well. I noticed that Greater Johannesburg is officially defined and delineated by the South African Government. It has clearly defined TLC/TRC and district council codes. This seems a Keep to me per WP:GEOLAND, being a legally defined place. Perhaps you might not have seen these government sources; would you be able to consider withdrawing your nomination if these sources satisfy you? Warmly,  Lourdes  03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - thanks for an interesting point: that "Greater Johannesburg" was a definition used only in the 1996 census, and by the transitional Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council (GJMC) during its brief existence from 1995 to 2000 (see Johannesburg). If its notability rests on that definition it cannot be correct for the article to actually be about a different area, encompassing East Rand and West Rand. I would agree to a re-purposing the article to the 1996-2000 definition. The citation problem the article currently has could then be dealt with. Batternut (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. I'm not an expert in the geography of South Africa. While you're mentioning that this definition was used only in the 1996 census, I have seen government links like this which refer to the Greater Johannesburg area as recent as August 2017. But I'll go by what you're saying, as long as you use reliable sourcing within the article. You can reposition the contents of the article to correctly represent what Greater Johannesburg encompassed (or encompasses). As the area has been recognized by the government, notability is established per WP:GEOLAND. I'll leave it to your discretion to modify the contents as such. If you would wish to consider withdrawing your nomination, then it would be good if you could leave a note at the top of this discussion for the closing editor. Warmly,  Lourdes  14:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closer inspection of the 1996 census codes linked by reveals that, with the inclusion of Midrand/Rabie Ridge/Ivory Park, that definition is conterminous with the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. Should we consider a redirect to that article to avoid duplication (ie a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK)? Batternut (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not clear how my sources could make you reach the conclusion you are mentioning. If you could provide any reliable source that supports your inference, I'll be open to changing my view. The Department of Water Affairs, Republic of South Africa's 2011 report on water certification mentions Greater Johannesburg is a part of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (see page 17 of their 2011 report). A plain reading perhaps would suggest that the Municipality you suggest is much larger than the Greater Johannesburg area, but not the same. Like I said, if you have any sources that clearly show that these both are the same, then I'll change my !vote. Therefore, in my opinion, there are three options here for consideration:
 * We keep the article titled Greater Johannesburg and stick to exactly what the government and other reliable sources mention about Greater Johannesburg.
 * We keep the article but rename it to the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area". (The article says Greater Johannesburg is also knowns as "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area". There are innumerable recent reliable sources mentioning this area. For example, this government paper defining the area's provincial spatial development framework says, "[...] the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area [is] (the industrial heartland of South Africa, including Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg)". This book says, "Witwatersrand also denotes the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area, which spans the length of the gold-bearing reef.").
 * We redirect the article to your target, if you can provide sources that clarify that these two areas are the same.
 * If you can provide the sources, that would be wonderful; else, we stick to the first two options. Warmly,  Lourdes  03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - I'd love to find some output from the 1996 census online, but have so far failed. The conterminous region theory stems particularly from (a citation I put into Johannesburg recently). Page 22 describes absorbing the MLCs plus Midrand Modderfontein, but Kempton Park confuses me, it might have been split up, I've seen it mentioned in both Joburg and East Rand. Btw the book  mentioned cites Wikipedia so must be discounted. I'll get back here again very soon. Batternut (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * option 1 - the 1996 census TLC (Transitory Local Council) list provides a difficult snapshot to work with - it defined "Greater Johannesburg" in terms of the transitory MLC's that existed for only 5 years. Most government and other RS is about the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area"/"Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council", which does provide some maps. The current City of Johannesburg MM is clearly a reforming of the GJMC with some boundary changes - indeed changes that take it closer to the 1996 TLC list, though not precisely. Other mostly non-official sources though have used the term "Greater Johannesburg" meaning the Rand / the Reef / Witwatersrand (in its widest sense).
 * option 2 - actually relatively few official mentions of "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area", only 16 for site:gov.za, compared with Durban about 65 or Cape Town about 641. All of the gov.za results I have seen are tangential, non-defining.
 * option 3 - the 1996 Census TLC list suggests some differences between the definition then and the current City of Jo'burg municipality. However, civic boundaries often vary over time without wikipedia having new articles for each version.
 * I think what this period saw was a slow-motion concretisation of definition of a new and wider metro to replace the old apartheid city. I see this five year period as the history of the birth of the current City of Johannesburg MM. Building a separate article (options 1) on "Greater Johannesburg" will amount largely to a summary of the history of current City of Johannesburg MM, probably with the addition of a selection of non-official interpretations along the lines of the wider Witwatersrand / PWV / most of Gauteng meanings, amounting to a rather unsatisfactory disambiguation page.
 * Btw, I think it would be best keep just a passing reference to GJMC in Johannesburg, moving most GJMC stuff to City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality or possibly History of Johannesburg. Batternut (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I appreciate the time you've taken to analyze and research. Unfortunately, unless you are able to find reliable sources supporting the interpretations you're giving, these inferences should not be included on Wikipedia. You say: "All of the gov.za results I have seen are tangential, non-defining." The sources I've given above define the area of Greater Johannesburg precisely, providing district and region information. Your inference perhaps is also that the number of government sources mentioning "Greater Johannesburg" is less than the number of sources mentioning other areas. That's not a critical parameter; as long as multiple sources do legally define the area, which in this case they do. I respect your opinions above, but as there are no sources to support your interpretations, I would finally prefer sticking to the first two options I have provided above. Thanks again for the effort taken out in this discussion. It has been a learning experience. I hope to work with you on other articles too. Warmly,  Lourdes  13:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us look closely at the sources you have provided:
 * 1996 census TLC, DCcodes - a list transitional councils disbanded 4 years later.
 * this (SARS contacts) - non-defining, but Lists Greater Johannesburg area amongst other areas Gauteng South; East Rand; West Rand and Gauteng north (including Centurion and Pretoria), therefore pretty well constrains Greater Johannesburg to a space the shape of City of Johannesburg MM (OR of course).
 * DWA 2011 report - non-defining, though the one mention, "Greater Johannesburg : City of Johannesburg MM" on p18, merely suggestive of a relationship;
 * SPISYS - one mention, "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area (the industrial heartland of South Africa, including Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg" hardly defining, and actually written by the "Dennis Moss Partnership", conflicts flatly with the others
 * This book - says "by Quelle Wikipedia", therefore cyclic ref, must ignore.
 * The TLC list is the only RS with any precision (so far...). As mentioned, definitions that were dropped by the next census. Do we really want a "Greater Johannesburg" article nailed to a transitional snapshot of boundaries used in 1996? Cities always change over time. Batternut (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cities may change over time but I took the time to go through Google Scholar and Google News sources. I realized that there are many academic and news reports post year 1998-99 that continue to refer to "Greater Johannesburg". For example, this publication of LSE and University of Cape Town notes: "Greater Johannesburg is a city of about 3 million people but is part of a conurbation comprising a population of something closer to 8 million which includes...", Many articles also have "Greater Johannesburg" in their titles, for example: "In-migration and Living Conditions of Young Adolescents in Greater Johannesburg, South Africa", "The question of road traffic congestion and decongestion in the greater Johannesburg area", "The impact of gated communities on spatial transformation in the Greater Johannesburg area", etc. The Independent Online writes: "By comparison, the average in greater Johannesburg, comprising the City of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni metros...". Financial Times carried a feature in May 2017 titled: "Investing in Gauteng: Greater Johannesburg". Political parties like ANC specifically refer to "Greater Johannesburg". This 1999 book is titled "Historical Dictionary of Greater Johannesburg ". The review of this book also addresses Greater Johannesburg. What I'm trying to mention is that in scholarly sources, news reports, popular culture etc, the terminology of "Greater Johannesburg" has continued quite strongly. Add to this you have mentioned above that your inference that Greater Johannesburg area is the same as the municipality may be original research ("...City of Johannesburg MM (OR of course)". Further, a "municipality" is an administrative body, while a "region" is a geographic mass. Equating the two seems illogical. Then there is actually no other option but to keep the article. Thanks,  Lourdes  01:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See . Batternut (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Johannesburg; no opinion on if R from misnomer is appropriate. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly a distinct geographic entity relative to the other Johannesburg pages mentioned here (overlapping, but distinct). A natural geographic term that is frequently used in sources (per Lourdes). A page discussing the region is appropriate. Lourdes' arguments are clear and seem valid. So far as I can see, Batternut's arguments seem to involve a lot of muddying of the water (eg, lots of detailed points that turn out to be wrong or irrelevant to the larger point) and dubious inferences. I don't have the patience of the Lourdes to go through and rebut in detail. Power-enwiki says redirect to Johannesburg, but offers no reasons. I'm agnostic about whether to add "Metropolitan Area" to the page title (discussed as an option by Lourdes). Either way, one name would be the page title (eg, Greater Johannesburg) and the other should be a redirect (eg, Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area). --Gpc62 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I said redirect because this is a two-paragraph article with no content that gives no indication this is a commonly-used term (the references barely use the term) and the Johannesburg article already discusses the full metropolitan area and not just the city proper. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but none of the links Lourdes found above seems to define an area called "Greater Johannesburg". Google news and scholar also find lots of hits for "Downtown Johannesburg" and "Central Johannesburg" (more news in fact). I don't think we particularly need articles on them. Redirects perhaps... Batternut (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Batternut, thanks for reworking the article. That's a gracious move. I haven't researched on Central Johannesburg or Downtown Johannesburg, but examples like Downtown Los Angeles or Central Los Angeles suggest that on a case by case basis, we can also consider separate articles for Central and Downtown Johannesburg. But that's a discussion which belongs to another page, not here. Thanks once more,  Lourdes  07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - in the spirit of Deletion policy I have reworked the article to what I consider verifiable. I remain unconvinced of its worth. Batternut (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At its best the article is just a disambiguation page, and one that has a clear primary target, and indeed no other real targets, so according to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, my vote (perhaps implicit as nominator) is redirect. Batternut (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2017 (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.