Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population


 * 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   delete. It seems the concerns about original research in this article cannot be overcome. -Scottywong | talk _ 21:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article's main source does not state that it is a source for the population of Settlements it is meant to show urban areas some of which are subdivided. Original research is used to brush over anomalies such as the lack of inclusion of London and subdivisions with the name of two settlements in the name. There is quite a long discussion about this here Eopsid (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Problems can be fixed by editing and deletion is not required. Aside from errors/OR issues, it's a perfectly reasonable list topic and nobody has so far suggested otherwise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But the whole article is just wilful misinterpretation of the source material which makes no claim to being a list of settlements. The source is a list of urban areas some of which are subdivided and the article lists the subdivisions (apart from the ones they dont like). So the article needs a new source but there is no source with a consistent definition of a settlement out there. Eopsid (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * redirect Could redirect to List of localities in England by population which contains similar entities but with a better source.--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mainly as per discussions on talkpage of said article. This has been a recurring theme for quite a few years now, but the basic problem is that there is not a reliable source for the definition of these entities as settlements. Also, I would be against a redirect to List of localities in England by population for the same reason (a locality is not necessarily a settlement). Polequant (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - many years ago I moved the article from "cities" to settlements as not all areas listed were\are cities. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article lacks any objective foundation. The only reliable source is the Office of National Statistics, which has Urban Areas and Urban Sub-areas. This article is a random mixture of both, depending entirely on the POV of individual editors as to what is included and what is divided from what. The article is unsourced and unsourceable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep and rename to List of localities in the United Kingdom by population, removing all of the entities that aren't localities. Localities do exist and the source for the data about them is impeccably reliable. the problem is the misleading title and the inconsistencies introduced by original research trying to make it look like they are settlements. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We've already got List of localities in England by population and similar for Wales, Scotland etc. Do we need one for the UK as a whole as well? Polequant (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The UK, being the sovereign state, is surely the most important division to be represented? I don't see much problem with them all coexisting, but if they shouldn't it's probably the sub-national ones that should be deleted, not this one. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are three different sources here one for england and wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. A list combining all this could come under Synthesis. Eopsid (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point - they are measured differently in Scotland to England and Wales at least. While this is true of urban areas too the ONS does publish documents combining them for Urban areas, so that presumably doesn't count as synthesis, while to my knowledge they don't for localities. On that basis the separate articles for England, Scotland etc should take precedence as you say, so I've changed my vote for this article to delete. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep unless someone can point to another article that lists UK urban areas without overbearing technical jargon and bizarre anomalies like not counting London -- MichiganCharms (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the danger with this article - it looks temptingly simple and appealing, but it does this by being grossly misleading. If you want to compare London and Manchester then what measure of Manchester you should use is pretty much open to debate - some people might argue for the strictly defined city, some for the urban area, some for something in between. Pretty much nobody would argue for "the urban area subdivided by pre-1974 county-borough borders" though - which is the measure that this article is implying is definitive. This is the most bizarre, counter-intuitive and overbearingly technical measure of the lot, which is why it is covered up with layers of original research to patch it up. The article as it is is completely unsupportable. Although I've voted keep and rename above, deleting it would definitely be better than leaving it as it is. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is another article that lists UK urban areas without overbearing technical jargon and bizarre anomalies like not counting London . Eopsid (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have perhaps been clearer... what I like about the article is that it gives me a (to my knowledge reasonably accurate) middle path between the urban areas list (wherein London includes Watford and Birmingham and Wolverhampton are a single place) and the localities list (wherein London is the City and there's zero integration between the UK countries). I understand that those are supported by official sources while this article isn't and that the boundaries used in it are totally arbitrary, But I think ditching something presented this simply without replicating it's positive aspects elsewhere would be a loss for the project. --MichiganCharms (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is no middle path without resorting to POV. We either use the only reliable source, the ONS classifications, or we make up something that fits some individuals fancy - or POV as its called in Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adding a note with the population of Greater London on the localities in England list really constitutes "POV", nor do I think an inclusive UK list is that much of a big deal as long as the differences are noted. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is because the items in the list are not necessarily settlements. The ONS does not define them as settlements so neither should we. And I don't care if we have a note that explains it, as the title and the data is what people will pay attention to. What the ONS call a 'locality' or 'sub-urban area' may or may not be a settlement but we do not have sources which tell us what each item is, and the ONS certainly do not define them as settlements. It is highly misleading to characterise these things as settlements when they may bear little relation to either administrative divisions or common perception of what a place is. If you want to find out the population of a place then go to the article on that place, where hopefully the data will be explained in a sensitive way that a list cannot manage. If you want to know a 'ranking' of a place look at the other population lists and draw your own conclusions. That this is an 'easy' or 'useful' article is not a reason to gloss over POV and OR. Polequant (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * POtential Keep -- This appears to be based on a classification by the Office for National Statistics, according to its lead. If so, it will be based on a definition system devised by them.  If that were not the case, I would regard the question of settlement boundaires as depending on the compiler's POV, which would make it WP:OR, and would need to be deleted.  However, if it is not based on an ONS survey (as others have suggested, deletion would be the only option.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly the point - it is NOT based on a classification by the Office for National Statistics. Or to be more precise, sometimes it is based on one classification (urban areas), sometimes another (urban sub-areas), and sometimes something in between - devoid of any logic other the POV of some editors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Changed my opinion from Keep and rename to as per point made by User:Eopsid above. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we take it as read that whatever happens to this article should happen to Template:25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population too? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fix and keep: The primary argument seems to be that the article is broken, not that that topic (or a similarly-titled article that, as of yet, does not exist) is notable. Topic pretty clearly meets GNG  p  b  p  18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest fixing it? Because if one changes (well, supplies at all) a definition of 'settlement' to mean either Urban Area or Urban Sub-area, then we already have articles that do that. You need to justify which unique characteristic would fix this article.
 * Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. The way that this list is created is original research. Note that the source for Scotland uses the word "settlement" to mean "urban area", and it uses quotes around "settlement" and "locality" because the General Register Office realises that they are using them as jargon words that need to be explained. Personally, I think that there is no point in having rankings based on arbitrary subdivisions of urban areas, so I would delete the "lists of localities" as well. JonH (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2012 (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.